Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010

[BeatleBoot]

http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010

Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010

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.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “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).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.

<more>

[jody]

1. BO is a political chameleon, he'll change his position on war and could end up more warlike than HC

or McCain.

[Boz]

2. Bit dyslexic there, here let me fix that for ya

Hillary is a political chameleon, she'll change her position on war and could end up more warlike than McCain

[BeatleBoot]

3. 2010? Which way is the wind blowing today Mr. Obama?

[northzax]

8. except, of course

Obama has been telling us he thought this whole thing was a mistake an lambasting hillary for her vote on iwr, strongly implying her would end the war immediately. And yet, his advisors say something else. If the war is so wrong and evil, why keep it going for half his first term? And why not say that, yourself, instead of having your advisors leak it? Sounds like more politics as usual from Mr. Change.

[Boz]

15. Sorry hes not a wicked witch who can click her heels together

and make all those troops come home over night. Which he hasn't said.

It takes time.

Even at the fastest deploying in history it would take more than 13 months.

Think about it 20,000 men and women a month and related hardware, airlifting and logistics.

Pretending 16 months is not fast enough tell me oh tell me how fast is anyone else going to get them out.

Hillary hasn't even committed to getting them out by a time frame yet.

[northzax]

17. so who's the last man to die?

wanna volunteer? 20,000 people a month, well below the us airlift capacity, is six months, not two years.

I am sure president obama will shake some grieving mother's hand and say 'sorry, mrs. Jones. I know i said this was a bad war 8 years ago, but it wasn't convenient to bring your son home before he was killed. Don't forget to vote!'

[Boz]

20. Ok Ill bite what is your suggested removal, Please enlighten us with your timeline and be specific

With dates, logistics and power vacums.

[northzax]

23. well it seems to me

that if your primary reason for differentation from your opponent is the war, and you make an implied promise to end it immediately, you should do it. Either you think there is value in having us troops in Iraq, in which case a slow drawdown is important, or you don't, in which case immediate withdrawal is an imperative. If the occupation is truely wrong, we could be out in a month. If you want to keep troops there longer, you are conceding that us troops ate adding value to Iraq. Which one is it?

[still_one]

5. Sorry, maybe you didn't hear the same debates I did, but BOTH Clinton

and Obama said they would leave forces in Iraq

[BeatleBoot]

10. But Obama's Campaign Said That's NOT their Position

So what gives?


"Mr. Kahl yesterday said, 'This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign.' "

[still_one]

13. I am telling you what they BOTH said in the debates, that they would

leave a certain amount of troops in Iraq to protect the embassy

That is what BOTH candidates said. How many troops was not specified, and they also both said they would remain a prescence in the area if needed

That is not a contradiction. That advisor indicated a number, Obama or Clinton NEVER mentioned a number

I don't care, view it anyway you want

I am for Obama, I assume you are for Hillary, and I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election regardless

My primary is already over

[DerekJ]

19. Again Jody, Didn't I prove you wrong before?!!!

Do you want me to post all the stupid comments you have made?!! Including thinking that Canada is in Iraq?!!!

[DerekJ]

21. Let me refresh your memory:

Was his speech against the war the most appropriate thing of the moment, or was it when he refused to throw his pastor under the bus even under the pressure of some of his own supporters an act of a chameleon??!

[still_one]

4. The truth is that is what both Hillary and Barack said during the debates

how much troops were never specified. This happens to be an advisor. Why don't they ask the CANDIDATES themselves instead of an advisor?

Also, why don't they ask mccain why if he thought voting against a day honoring Martin Luther King was right before, why it is wrong now, and if he believes it is wrong now, why did he vote against Head Start?

In addition, if mccain spoke so much against torture, how come he voted for waterboarding?

If mccain thought decreasing taxes was wrong while we are fighting a war, he now believes it is O.K.

I am really confused how come the media likes to jump on OUR candidates, but pretty much accept everything said by mccain

Sorry to digress, but I addressed you point in the first part of this response

[BeatleBoot]

6. Then why is the campaign backing away from it?

"Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."

[Boz]

18. Because unlike Bush or other dynasty politicians Obama has said he doesn't only want

yes men and news and positions he agrees with.

Thats why his informed decisions will come from all sides, good and bad and even those he doesn't agree with or are contradictory to his policies.

If anything this paper suggest exactly what he said he would do in his presidency, ask fo all views including those he doesn't agree with or embrace.

It has nothing to do with his campaign because he is preparing for his presidency. Whether he is or not it is part of his job to be prepared to be.

[jillan]

7. Ok - Mr. Beatle Boot ---

I k/r'd yours.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5387736&mesg_id=5387736

:P

[BeatleBoot]

11. Consider your back scratched.

Number 5 rec for you !!!

:toast:

[slinkerwink]

9. Obama to be sworn into office in 2009. His Iraq plan says withdrawal of troops within sixteen months

And sixteen months from 2009 is........::drum roll: 2010.

[BeatleBoot]

14. Rim shot!

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.

Says nothing of removing them - just keeping them there.

[Boz]

16. That is close to 2/3 of our force out of Iraq at that time.

How is it so confusing?

[Oregone]

12. Its really no surprise.

These candidates aren't going to change my world. They are probably keeping their fingers crossed that something will suck us in right before their inaugeration. Maybe the massive payoffs to the militias will dry up in time to obligate us to stay there.

[madrchsod]

22. this story has been going on since 8 this morning

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5380065
Obama Advisor calls for 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops to Stay in Iraq through 2010 - Democratic Underground


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5387736&mesg_id=5387736
Democratic Underground - Key advisor on Iraq for Obama recommending 60-80k troops until 2010. - Democratic Underground


...hopefully the "hillary crying" has just about run it`s course..on to the next grand story!

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Probably just Obama getting ready to triangulate in the general for votes.

He will let voters believe that he will do whatever they want him to do in Iraq. The "we will do whatever is prudent" policy will let the people who think we should stay believe he will stay and those who want us to leave believe he will leave. His core supporters all know in their hearts that he is the anti-war candidate so they will not doubt him.

The tricky part will be convincing the Dems who are already mad at him for Hillary. They do not trust him and this could scare them into thinking that he has made a deal with the Oil companies. It might be just a tad early to start triangulating on this issue, with his support among Democrats slipping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Candido77]

25. I disagree with Obama's adviser. Brings the troops home now! n/t