Obama Advisor calls for 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops to Stay in Iraq through 2010

[MNDemNY]

WASHINGTON — A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
http://www.nysun.com/news/national/obama-adviser-calls-60000-80000-us-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010:wtf: :shrug:
try this one:http://www.nysun.com/

[dogday]

1. So basically almost half the troops will stay for

peace keeping... I was hoping more than that would be able to come home...

[MNDemNY]

3. That seems to be a rather large "peace-keeping" force.

[dogday]

8. Yes, that is what I was thinking...

I really had hoped more would be coming home... I am glad my Son is home from that mess....

[Benhurst]

51. Excitement grows as Democrats narrow their choice to the two frontrunners ...

The World's Only Superpower marches on ..

and on ...

and on ...

and ...

[MNDemNY]

55. Love it.

Re-Elect Al Gore.:hi:

[Benhurst]

59. Amen!

:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. ...

:thumbsup: We can pick 'em, can't we? :evilgrin:

[easy_b94]

2. He said he going to take them out carefully...right now we have over 160,000 in Iraq.

[MNDemNY]

6. He's saying what he needs to say.

Pandering to the anti-war folks. Is his out in 16 months just a "Hope"?

[joshcryer]

11. Yeah, he's saying he'll "leave" but also saying he'll "stay" to fight back McCain's rhetoric.

In other words, he probably doesn't know wtf he's going to do.

[easy_b94]

15. Yeah i have to give slack on that..We do need to get out but we need to be very careful

[rodeodance]

18. Clinton has detailed plan--to get troops out safey--BO wants them to stay

[easy_b94]

21. Hillary VOTED-DD FOR THE WAR she is going to do a bait and switch on yall (IF she gets in)

[MNDemNY]

23. You mean like this position from the Obama camp?

[joshcryer]

24. Why would she?

What would she gain by keeping them in? Please enlighten me.

Her policy proposals not getting through?

Her constituants being pissed off?

Are you serious?

[easy_b94]

26. she tooo close to the BUSH Fam

[MNDemNY]

29. bla-bla-bla

[easy_b94]

31. Can't reply that can you...I got you

[MNDemNY]

34. Yep you gots me......Clinton and Bush are the best of buds.

I here GHW is actually Hillary's bed-buddie.

[joshcryer]

39. That's not a coherent response.

More substance, please. :hi:

[joshcryer]

22. Yeah, Edwards called him out on that in his last debate.

It was shocking how he wouldn't commit to actually leaving.

[UALRBSofL]

79. rodeodance does this sound like something Republicans did

in the Vietnam War. There argument was to leave troops in for peacekeeping because there argument was South Vietnam would go into Civil War Mode and the communist North Korea would take over. So, Nixon finally pulled out and we see how South Korea turned out. So, this is such a bad way to start your campaign by pulling a right wing stunt leaving almost as many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as we already have there now. Sadly. :shrug:

[rodeodance]

82. The simularites with the RW are astounding. Very scary stuff!

[MNDemNY]

19. Leaving half the troops certainly is "careful"

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. We weren't careful going in were we? Which is why we're in deep doo doo now.

[GoldieAZ49]

84. Yes, and "Change"

he can change his position faster than a speeding bullet, no pun intended

[DerekJ]

4. at odds as in 8 month more ?!!

he takes office in 2009, they begin withdrawing say 4 or 5 month into his presidency. 16 month later it's 2010?!!!

I don't get it?!!

[joshcryer]

42. "By the end of 2010."

[DerekJ]

48. Yes I know that , 2009 has 12 month, and 2010 has another 12

that's 24 month.

24 -16 = 8.

So it will be 8 month more, you have to take into account 3 or 4 month for planning, so he will be 3-4 or month late.

Much ado about nothing really.

[dkf]

5. "Page not found"

[joshcryer]

9. Link:

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74207

[PA Democrat]

7. Your link is not working.

[MNDemNY]

10. Here.

http://www.nysun.com/

[joshcryer]

12. Post #9 has a direct link. :)

:hi:

[MNDemNY]

13. Thanks

[rodeodance]

14. He would be McCain-lite if BO took that advice.

[MNDemNY]

16. Th writer is...

the coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq.

[OzarkDem]

28. Obama's "kitchen cabinet"

They hold the keys to how Obama will really govern. Without experience or skills, he'll be relying on them to tell him what to do. We don't know enough about them and should.

[MNDemNY]

32. I fear it will be more of a "pulpit" cabinet.

[rodeodance]

85. Well we found out some with Samatha Powers. The OP seems to be in that vien.

[joshcryer]

17. Most of his positions are that way, unfortunately.

I really wish people would realize this.

[MNDemNY]

20. Blind allegiance is dangerous.

[OzarkDem]

25. How does he propose to pay for it?

I'll ask him the same question we ask Bush. If you want to stay in Iraq tell us how you'll pay for it.

[MNDemNY]

27. Why, oil revenues, of course.

[OzarkDem]

30. ...

:rofl:

It would be funny if it weren't so frightening...

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. ...

:spray:

[GoesTo11]

33. It was helpful to read the actual article

From the referenced paper: "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)"

" yesterday said, "This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign." He added, "There are elements that are consistent with the Democratic Party's approach, and I will leave it to others to find out if there are elements that are not."

"It refers to the U.S. being out of the lead, largely in a support role. It doesn't mean the U.S. does not do things like targeted counterterrorism missions or continue to train and advise the Iraqis," he said. "It would not be 150,000 Americans taking the lead in counterinsurgency."

So, the this is an idea one of his advisers has but not Obama's plan. I suppose it could possibly become his plan, but in truth, whoever wins will have to figure out exactly what to do after they take office and not before.

About the plan itself, we're talking at the low end 40% of the number of troops currently there within < 2 years of taking office. It's not the same as 100% withdrawal, but it's a reasonable idea to have on the table given the uncertainty about how things are going to play out. If it's done in conjunction with a much broader international effort focused mostly on preventing and mitigating disaster and repairing damage etc., and if the troops are kept in non-aggressive positions, this *might* be a necessary or useful step on the way to extricating the US from this situation.

[MNDemNY]

36. 80,000 troops in a "non-agressive " role?

Sounds allot like Korea. 100 years??????????

[theboss]

52. God, if only Iraq could be like Korea

That would be a foreign policy miracle.

[MNDemNY]

56. It could be like Korea...in 1955!

[GoesTo11]

93. Not aggressive if it's a managed drawdown.

Somewhere between 150,000 and 0, you have to go through 80,000 and 60,000. Of course, that could happen all in a few minutes if it's like the last days of US presence in Viet Nam. If the plan is to keep 80,000 troops there indefinitely, I agree, it's hard to see avoiding a lot more conflict and cost. In other words, a strategic decision to stay there with large numbers of troops wouldn't be that much of a change if it's (targeted at) 80,000 instead of 150,000.

If the plan is to draw troops down from 150,000 to 0, and the question is only whether the number of troops will hit 60,000 in late 2009 or late 2010 (on its way to 0 in either case), this seems more like the kind of tactical decision that has to be made in response to facts as they unfold. The position in the article is consistent with a nearly complete withdrawal over 3-4 years instead of 1-2 years. If anyone in Obama's camp starts talking about long-term occupation, that'll be flying in the face of his promises.

Nobody in the article said anything about 100 years. That was the Republican candidate.

[DemVet]

35. People are naive..

...if they think any candidate will pull ALL of the troops out of Iraq. It's just not going to happen.

[MNDemNY]

38. Then maybe a candidate should be more honest when talking of troop withdrawal.

[joshcryer]

43. Sure, but Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his plan.

[MNDemNY]

47. Quit looking so closely...

[madrchsod]

46. we will be lucky if the trooops are out by 2011

we are never leaving the middle east until the last barrel of oil is gone or we actually invest in our own fuel production.

[ProSense]

37. Here is something a more senior foreign policy advisor wrote

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War

They all have opinions, and they're not all the same.

[madrchsod]

40. neither candidate will be able to form a plan to get out of iraq

until they get to the oval office,have real time information,consult with other "friends" in the area, and have their advisor's create a plan to get our troops out with creating a bigger disaster than the one now.

there will be a draw down in troop strength starting in 2009 but how long it takes depends on what is happening in the future.

[joshcryer]

45. He won't even start until late 2009 if he does that. Hillary wants to start immediately.

[madrchsod]

61. hillary is playing the voters...

what hillary "wants" but that does`t make it so. we have to bring the surrounding countries into the process and that will take time.we will leave probably 20-25,000 troops somewhere in the middle east by the end of 2011.

then there`s the real problem-the boys in the mountains..the boys who are our real enemy

[anigbrowl]

94. That's foolishness

It would be nice to start withdrawing troops on Jan 21 2009 but hopelessly impractical. For anyone, being able to start a withdrawal within 3 months would be a wonderful miracle. It will take a month or so just to get fully up to speed on dealing with the DoD and learning about the tactical situation on the ground and so on. We all want to get troops out and home ASAP but not at the expense of Iraq turning into a free for all.

Meantime, you're assuming that what one of Obama's advisers thinks would be a manageable plan (but a provisional one, made without benefit of the ability to just pick up the phone and summon the Pentagon brass for a meeting) is now the exact same as the candidate's position.

[Zachstar]

98. That is BS and you know that.

#1 Clinton has not even admitted her war vote was wrong.

#2 You have zero proof that Obama fully intends to start LATE 2009.

[karynnj]

41. Did you read your own link - this is not OBAMA's policy

n an interview yesterday, a senior Obama foreign affairs adviser, Susan Rice, said the Iraq working group is not the last word on the campaign’s Iraq policy.

“We have experts and scholars with a range of views and Barack appreciates this range of views. They are in think tanks and like me they write in their own voice, they are people who do their independent scholarship. Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for what we all write,” she said. Ms. Rice said she had not seen the paper, which is marked as a draft and “not for attribution without author’s permission.”

Mr. Kahl yesterday said, “This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign.” He added, “There are elements that are consistent with the Democratic Party’s approach, and I will leave it to others to find out if there are elements that are not.”

Mr. Kahl’s approach would call on the remaining troops in Iraq to play an “over-watch role.” The term is used by Multinational Forces Iraq to describe the long term goal of the coalition force presence in the country, Mr. Kahl said in an interview.

[MNDemNY]

44. Where did I say it was? Title is from article.

[PA Democrat]

49. Thank you for the link. I would encourage people to read the ENTIRE article before misconstruing

Kahl's position as the official position of the Obama campaign. From your link:

http://www.nysun.com/

In an interview yesterday, a senior Obama foreign affairs adviser, Susan Rice, said the Iraq working group is not the last word on the campaign’s Iraq policy.

“We have experts and scholars with a range of views and Barack appreciates this range of views. They are in think tanks and like me they write in their own voice, they are people who do their independent scholarship. Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for what we all write,” she said. Ms. Rice said she had not seen the paper, which is marked as a draft and “not for attribution without author’s permission.”

Mr. Kahl yesterday said, “This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign.” He added, “There are elements that are consistent with the Democratic Party’s approach, and I will leave it to others to find out if there are elements that are not.”


Obama has said that he will listen to a wide variety of viewpoints and has reminded people of the folly of listening to only those who tell you what you want to hear as Bush has.

[joshcryer]

54. When Edwards and Hillary called him out for not committing to quick troop withdrawal...

...I knew then that he wasn't committed.

He doesn't really have a plan for withdrawal.

Kinda like the guy we got now.

[anigbrowl]

97. Right - you'd rather believe what you want to hear than deal with the facts

If you think Hillary is going to start ordering troops back on her first day in the white house you're deluded. I would like our troops out of Iraq pronto - and I believe most people in the armed services want out of it as well, from top to bottom - but it's not as simple as pulling a lever.

[theboss]

50. Advisors advise. They don't make policy.

Do you really think that a president's national security team is ever going to be in 100 percent agreement on anything? Or even 60 percent agreement.

This is a perfectly reasonable draw-down plan that will probably never be implemented.

[BenDavid]

53. Kinda like what I wrote back several months ago that if you were

thinking that obama would pull all the troops out of Iraq then you would be wrong. HRC reconized this fact early on and said and I paraphrase, the incoming president will have to deal with the hand given. The joint chiefs, the generals on the ground will be more reliable in helping make the decision to pull all or keep most troops in Iraq.

That is easily understood and I wish HRC would take obama to task for his lack of experience in this area.

[MNDemNY]

58. Yes, the Obama rhetoric is disingenuous, at best.

[still_one]

62. Really Ben, there is no source from this article. Why don't they just ask HIM?

I guess when people say that Clinton is part of the PNAC philosophy, I should just drink their KookAide also, huh?

[still_one]

57. gosh, that was a well-sourced article. Why doesn't the paper instead of

printing a one paragragh statement saying someone "unknown" advisor indicated this, go DIRECTLY TO OBAMA AND ASK HIM?

Something doesn't check right in that story

It is like "SOME" people who say Hillary is part of PNAC. Why don't they go directly to HER, and ask her?

Otherwise it is B.S.

[MNDemNY]

60. Read it again it names the adviser..

He is the coordinator of the Obama campaigns working group on Iraq.

[still_one]

64. Which adivsor, and why isn't this on other new's sources, and why

aren't they following it through by asking HIM DIRECTLY?

[MNDemNY]

66. Colin Kahl. The coordinator for the Obama camp's working group on Iraq.

The article states "exclusive" access to the paper. It will be more widely reported ,now.

[still_one]

68. At least when I followed the link, it didn't give the name when I read it

I will Google Kahl and see what results

[MmeG]

63. NYSun???

The NYSun is a right wing rag, real fishwrap. Citing it is like citing Rev. Moon's Washington Times. Puhleeze!

[still_one]

65. I didn't mention that, but naming an UNAMED senior advisor, and not

even following it through by ASKING THE CANDIDATE DIRECTLY, and not having any OTHER NEWS SOURCE report it, shows that it is bullshit

[MNDemNY]

67. Colin Kahl, not "unnamed".

[still_one]

71. My appologizes, I did NOT follow the link deep enough, you are correct

Again, someone should ask Obama directly his views. In other articles by Kahl he has indicated that both Clinton and Obama have pretty much the same position

Again, I would like to ask BOTH candidates

In retrospect, during the debates if I recall, both candidates indicated they would leave some troops in Iraq for embasy stabilization, without being specific

Obviously, I was speaking without the facts, sorry

Still, I want the question asked of both candidates

Either way, I will vote for WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is in the general election

Appreciate the information

[MNDemNY]

77. No prob.

:toast:

[still_one]

87. Thanks /nt

[madrchsod]

69. right wing? like this tripe.....

"We wouldn't want to make too much of the communists on the Coast. But we wouldn't want to make too little of it either, nor fail to remark on the ironies, either. The Lowenthal bill has the backing of both of California's two major teachers' unions, the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers. We miss the great anti-communist labor leaders, like Irving Brown, Jay Lovestone, Ronald Reagan, Albert Shanker, and Lane Kirkland. They would have said something."


.http://www.nysun.com/editorials/california-communists
The California Communists | The New York Sun

[DLnyc]

101. Thank you for pointing that out.

New York Sun is not a reliable source--it is a RW propaganda organ that 'appeared' suddenly and does not have any real readership--it is not generally carried in newstands at all.

[stillcool]

70. Who knew?

Obama Loads Up With 150+ Foreign Policy Advisers, Many Former Clinton Officials
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/05/obama-loads-up-with-150-_n_63158.html
Wall Street Journal | September 5, 2007 11:37 AM
What Democratic Sen. Barack Obama may lack in foreign-policy experience, he is trying to make up for in sheer numbers of advisers -- enough, says one of the team, for "his own virtual State Department."


Since launching his presidential bid in February, the freshman senator from Illinois has used the burgeoning brain trust -- now over 150 advisers and counting -- to help flesh out an almost wonkishly detailed set of statements, on the Iraq war, on Iran, U.S. counterterrorism strategy, the future of the U.S. military, even Cuba. Coming up next, his advisers say, will be more on China, U.S. energy security, the plight of Iraqi refugees, and how much to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

But the makeup of Mr. Obama's team -- heavy on onetime aides to President Clinton -- also speaks to an internecine feud between Mr. Obama and his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, over which of them represents the future of their party.

For crafting his counterinsurgency strategy, Mr. Obama has Harvard University's Sarah Sewall, who worked in the Pentagon under President Clinton. For overall security issues he leans on Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Anthony Lake. What about fighting AIDS or boosting U.S. trade in Africa? For that and more, he has former Clinton administration diplomat Susan Rice.

Obama’s Advisers
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4901
Obama’s foreign policy advisers run the gamut from mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations to outspokenly liberal academics and activists. On the one hand, those from the Democratic foreign policy establishment tend to be associated with its more enlightened wing. On the other hand, even those among the liberal activists seem to be more inclined to criticize the U.S. government for failing to take a firmer stand against the crimes of others than acknowledge the crimes, past and present, for which the United States bears responsibility. While maintaining a strong stated commitment to international humanitarian law and a belief in the responsibility of the international community to respond to crises such as Darfur, there’s little open recognition of U.S. culpability in humanitarian crises elsewhere or any real critique of empire.

Still, there’s a marked contrast between the team for foreign policy experts assembled around Obama and those of his principal rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. In contrast with Clinton’s foreign policy advisers – most of whom strongly supported the invasion of Iraq – virtually all of Obama’s advisers opposed the war from the beginning. The Nation magazine noted that members of Obama’s foreign policy team, who also tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, are “more likely to stress ‘soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.

Obama advisers to host foreign policy forum
Special to the Tribune-Star
http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_091225758.html
A group of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, including Greg Craig, Sarah Sewell and retired Air Force Brig. Gen. James Smith, will participate in three panel discussions across Indiana today and Wednesday. They will discuss Obama’s plan to restore American leadership on the world stage and decrease the risk of terrorism by attacking global poverty, upholding the rule of law and rebuilding international cooperation.

The Terre Haute foreign policy forum will be staged at 1 p.m. today at Tirey Hall Heritage Room at Indiana State University.

Sewell, a first deputy assistant secretary of defense during Bill Clinton’s administration, is director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She also served as a senior foreign policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Her current research focuses on counterinsurgency and terrorism.

Craig served as director of policy planning at the State Department during the Clinton administration and was the special counsel to President Clinton.

Smith was the deputy commander of the Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk, Va. The general is a 1974 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and received a master’s degree in history from Indiana University in 1975. His aviation career includes 4,000 hours in the F-15 and T-38, including combat sorties during Desert Storm.

Colin Kahl, Center for a New American Security

By Laura Rozen

October 18, 2007
MJ: Is there any security or logistical concern for the American forces about moving out? Do you foresee someone trying to make it embarrassing for them if they leave because they don't want them to go?

CK: The big question is whether you are going to totally withdraw American forces. That would have to be done with a lot of careful thinking, because the people I speak to say as a rule of thumb that given the number of forces and the amount of equipment we have in Iraq, and given the dangerous circumstances, it'll take about a year if all you want to do is get our troops out, and it'll take two years if you want all their stuff out. All people talk about a precipitous situation. What would that mean? I think that would mean a withdrawal that is shorter than a year or a year and a half. And there is danger when we withdraw large numbers. We're not talking about withdrawal of 50,000 troops in that context. We're talking about if you start to cut the force in half. If that is not done carefully, there are risks. There are groups that will try to establish their credentials by attacking us so they can claim they drove us out. There may be incentives, something a lot of people aren't talking about, to leave Iraq the way we came, which is down south. We'll have to go through southern Iraq, which the British are withdrawing from, where violence is increasing, where the Iranians have a lot of influence, and where Shiite and Iranian groups may have incentive to do things to American forces to bloody their noses on the way out.

MJ: What about the concern about Al Qaeda dropping bridges?

CK: Earlier this year, there were a couple of high-profile demolitions of bridges by the insurgents. There are only something like 13 bridges in Baghdad. If they were blown, that would funnel American forces into a small number of bottlenecks that could be targeted. That is one theory of why the bridges were being blown up—just to practice. We have to plan to leave more carefully than we planned to enter. People thinking about this issue, whether they be groups inside the Pentagon or associated with Petraeus' command in Iraq, are not allowed to talk to each other. All of their efforts are basically secret and sealed off from one another. It's such a political hot potato. Once it looks like we're doing contingency plans for withdrawal, it's seen as politically problematic. But I will say the think tanks aren't the place where military planning should be done.

MJ: As we reduce our presence in Iraq, do you think this administration will feel that we're less vulnerable in a way, and that it might try to take action against Iran on its way out?

CK: There are some who argue that we need to demonstrate to the world that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, that even though we're bogged down in Iraq, we're still capable of doing enormous damage to our enemies, including the Iranians and their nuclear program.

MJ: Do you think that essentially there is undeclared war between Iran and the U.S. in Iraq, or is that overstating it?

CK: One could make the case that we're at war with Iran throughout the entire Middle East, but more in a Cold War sense of backing proxies than of killing one another. The dynamics are self-sustaining and are rooted in the fact that both we and the Iranians are seeking to influence politics throughout the Middle East. I think it's important to talk with the Iranians for transparency purposes, so that we can vent our concerns, and they can do likewise and maybe open up some space for dialogue on a very limited, narrow range of issues that we might have agreement on. I think it may also be important simply to demonstrate that we are willing to talk to the Iranians, period, which may have a broader diplomatic benefit. I don't know that anybody looking at it as a sober assessment believes that the talks will generate kind of a magical solution to Iranian involvement, let alone help the political problems in Iraq, in part because it's not even clear that the Americans and the Iraqi government are on the same page as it relates to Iran.

MJ: I know you've thought a lot about our moral obligation to prevent massive bloodletting from occurring in Iraq as the U.S. tries to disengage. Yes, in principle we have a moral obligation to stop that bloodshed, but what's achievable?

CK: If the goal is zero sectarian violence or zero violence that looks genocidal in character—what I mean by that is groups being targeted for their ethnic or sectarian identities—I don't think the Americans have the capability to stop all instances of genocidal violence in Iraq. It's proven, as a matter of fact, that we can't do it now, even though we are at the highest troop level of the entire war. But do we have an obligation to prevent all-out genocide? I think an argument can be made that we do. I mean, all-out genocide would look like an organized effort by the Iraqi government and affiliated militias to project power deep into the Sunni heartland and kill hundreds of thousands of Sunnis. There's a debate about how likely that is. I mean, one of the reasons for believing in a rough equilibrium of power within a highly decentralized Iraq is that it makes all-out genocide less likely, in the sense that the Sunnis would basically be too strong for the Shiites to wipe out.

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/11/iraq-war-colin-kahl.html

[madrchsod]

74. people should read kahls realist picture

of a what it will take to withdraw our troops..it`s not going to happen in 16 months

[MNDemNY]

76. Then, you agree that Obama's rhetoric is disingenuous?

[madrchsod]

81. yes it is

but that`s politics..give the people what they want to hear. both candidates do this and both candidates will not "cut and run". as soon as one of them sits in the big chair then the process of getting out will start

[stillcool]

89. I can't imagine what Iraq looks like today..

Let along a year from now. I did hear Senator Obama say at a town-hall meeting that nothing could be done about health care, education, energy..any of the problems we face in this country.. until we end the war, because we won't be able to afford anything else.

[JayFredMuggs]

78. "in a confidential paper "?

Wow, how come we all know about it already if it's "confidential"?

Did you somehow think Obama would not look at ALL the options?

[MNDemNY]

80. Then, he/they should be more careful with their rhetoric.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

83. General William Odom Tells Senate- "Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution"

General William Odom Tells Senate- "Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution"

General William Odom Tells Senate
Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ

By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.

2 April 2008

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

...

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make
sense.

First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.

I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19671.htm

[OneBlueSky]

86. who really makes the decision about troops in Iraq? . . . it's not the president . . .

and it's not the Congress . . . it's the oil companies, arms dealers, agribusiness conglomerates, mercenaries, and all the rest of the corporations that are making billions and billions of dollars from the U.S. occupation . . . if they don't want the troops to leave, the troops won't leave . . . that's how much power they have over both the legislative and executive branches of our government . . .

why do you think we keep kicking in $70 billion here and $100 billion there to keep the occupation going? . . . because a lot of that money is going directly to the bottom lines of any number of huge corporations that fund the campaigns of members of Congress, senators, and the president . . . what the corporate masters want, the corporate masters get . . .

ending the Iraq war will only happen if a president and a Congress stand up to the corporations and say "NO!" . . . hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen with either Obama or Clinton . . . and certainly not with McCain . . . our "leaders" are not yet ready to break the corporate umbilical cord that keeps them in office and the corporations swimming in profits . . . as Gen. Butler so wisely noted many years ago, war is a racket -- and the racketeers are making out like the bandits they are . . .

[stillcool]

91. That is Congress...

and the President. And it has been for a long time. Nation vs Empire

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

[SIMPLYB1980]

88. K&R thaks for the link.

Sadly it's worse than I thought with Obama, gonna take a lot of Kool aid. :freak:

[MadBadger]

90. A Key Adviser? The Queen had her fired, remember?

[MyNameGoesHere]

92. he's a hawk.whadda expect?

We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.
Barack Obama

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
Barack Obama

Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation.
Barack Obama

The first thing I will do is initiate a phased redeployment. Military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.
Barack Obama

The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought.
Barack Obama

We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama

As president, I want us to fight on the right battlefield, and what that means is getting out Iraq and refocusing our attention on the war that can be one in Afghanistan.
Barack Obama

If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, , and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense. For us to authorize where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present--which you authorized--and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did attack 3,000 Americans, .
Barack Obama

It makes more sense for us to focus on those terrorists who are active to try to roll them up where we have evidence that in fact these countries are being used as staging grounds that would potentially cause us eminent harm, and then we go in. The US has to reserve all military options in facing such an imminent threat
Barack Obama

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

[aquarius dawning]

95. What does he hope to gain by pulling half the troops out and leaving half of them behind?

Sounds like more military half measures for political expediency to me. The same thing that created the mess in the first place. A comfortable compromise that keeps just enough people happy to avoid a major backlash.

[Zachstar]

96. Then Obama needs to fire this so called "Adviser"

Obama made it clear that other than a small force to protect the embassy (We have those everywhere)

We are getting OUT of Iraq.

So this adviser is an idiot.

[tokenlib]

99. Wrong! Obama doesn't want to be surrounded by "yes" people

He wants to have advisors that advise and challenge his thinking. It will keep him honest. It doesn't mean he'll agree.

[Zachstar]

100. I disagree

Their job is to come up with many reasonable plans. Obama made it clear that he will begin major troop withdrawal in 2009 and that other than the force to protect the US embassy we are getting OUT of Iraq! and the advisers need to fully respect that. That is not being yes men. That is getting a good policy for a cause.

If we got advisers that say we ought to nuke Iran will you consider that just a thinking challenge?

[nolabels]

102. A confidential recommendation from an adviser is just that..........a recommendation

Next thing you know the eaves droppers from the four letter presidency will be sending out intimate details about every Obama supporters past love life



P.S. not that it would matter to me, i hate everyone equally }(