See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama Adviser Calls for 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74207
Published: Apr 4, 2008
Author: Eli Lake
Post Date: 2008-04-04 10:26:15 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 4660
Comments: 86
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. This is not the first time the opinion of an adviser to the Obama campaign has differed with the candidate's stated Iraq policy. In February, Mr. Obama's first foreign policy tutor, Samantha Power, told BBC that the senator's current Iraq plan would likely change based on the advice of military commanders in 2009. She has since resigned her position as a formal adviser. The political ramifications of the disclosure are yet to be seen. The perception of a harder line in Iraq could help Mr. Obama combat charges by Senator McCain in a general election that Mr. Obama favors a hasty surrender and retreat in Iraq. But it could hurt the Obama campaign with anti-war voters in the Democratic primaries. Mr. Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Clinton, has called for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but an architect of the surge has told the Sun that she has been wary of a precipitous withdrawal. In a situation with some parallels to this one, Mr. Obama suffered some political damage on the trade issue when he called publicly for a renegotiation of NAFTA while a policy adviser reportedly met with Canadian officials and downplayed the chances of a NAFTA retreat. 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." 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. "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." Mr. Obama's policy to date also allows for a residual force for Iraq. In early Iowa debates, the senator would not pledge to remove all soldiers from Iraq, a distinction from his promise to withdraw all combat brigades. Also, Mr. Obama has stipulated that he would be open to having the military train the Iraqi Security Forces if he received guarantees that those forces would not be the shock troops of one side of an Iraqi civil war. But the Obama campaign has also not said how many troops would make up this residual force. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," Ms. Rice said. She added, "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces." Mr. Kahl's paper laid out what he called a "middle way" between unlimited engagement in Iraq and complete and rapid disengagement. The approach is contingent, he said, on the progress and willingness of Iraq's major confessional parties in reaching political accommodation. "There is a fundamental difference in the assumption between the Democratic approach and the Bush-McCain approach. That approach is premised on the assumption the Iraqi government wants to reach accommodation and what they need is time. The surge is premised on the notion of creating breathing space," Mr. Kahl said. He added that his strategy would pressure and entice the Iraqi government to begin political accommodation by not only starting the withdrawal, but also by stating that America had no intention to hold permanent bases in the country.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#1. To: christine (#0)
It's not really "at odds." All one has to do is re-define the meaning of combat troops and *presto* problem solved. We'll just have 10,000s of "advisors" running around Iraq. Germany did the same thing in the 1930s "An army? Not at all. It's a state financed rifle club...with 500,000 members." Still, it seems a bit hasty to attribute the rough draft writings of staff to Obama himself. I say go right to the source: "As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran." "My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East."
the fact is, nothing will change in regard to ME foreign policy with anyone from the democrat party. the puppet will do the bidding of his globalist masters.
It does seem like the same old march down the same old road, doesn't it? Nothing short of a US bankruptcy will end the occupation/war, and maybe not even that.
The troops have to stay in Iraq until the war with Iran starts. The troops are there to blackmail the American public into supporting the war with Iran and the whole Muslim world of 1.3 billion people. We do not have resources to do battle so what we can do is to nuke the Muslims (i.e.genocide is the plan.) Both political parties are Zionist entities. It is not for nothing that people call our government ZOG (Zionist Oxxupation Group.)
You're right. In reading about Obama's phased, systematic withdrawal (he gives no date certain) this morning, the logical question I had was where would they be withdrawn to? In more than one article I read, the answer was to Afghanistan which plays in nicely to your Iranian war scenario.
oh really, i missed that.
March 12, 2007 Barack Obama is running for President and advertising himself as an anti- war candidate. But the facts tell a different story. Since becoming a Senator in 2005, Obama has voted to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on every occasion, including at least 3 major funding bills (see below). Furthermore, in a series of recent speeches and a bill introduced in the Senate ("Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007"), Obama completely rejects the demand "U.S. troops, Out of Iraq, Now!" Obama's homepage summarizes his bill, introduced in the Senate on January 30, 2007: "a phased redeployment of U.S. troops . . . a residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists . . . troops should be redeployed . . . to Afghanistan and to other points in the region." In a major policy speech on November 20, 2006 at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama further elaborates his plan, underlining that "U.S. forces might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time . . . dedicated to the critical, but less visible roles, of protecting logistics supply points, critical infrastructure, and American enclaves like the Green Zone, as well as acting as a rapid reaction force to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists." Obama further insists that any "drawdown" or "redeployment" of U.S. troops in Iraq should be used to escalate the so-called "war on terrorism" in other places. Obama writes: "drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. . . . Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan. . . By redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will answer NATO's call for more troops and provide a much-needed boost to this critical fight against terrorism." How many troops would be "redeployed" and how many would remain in Iraq? Obama himself avoids giving specific numbers but he repeatedly emphasizes that his plan would implement the "recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group" which issued a report last December. The Iraq Study Group was built on the idea of a long-term occupation of Iraq by 70,000 U.S. troops. Even Obama's promise for a partial "redeployment" of troops turns out to be empty. While promising out of one side of his mouth, Obama, provides a loophole, out of the other side. Obama's bill allows for the "suspension of the redeployment . . . if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration." No, Barack Obama's plan for Iraq is not a program for peace. It is a plan for a long-term occupation and a protracted U.S. war against Iraq. It is a plan for escalating U.S. imperialism's so-called "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In short, Obama is a war-wolf in sheep's clothing. His empty promises and false advertisements aim only at diverting the American people's anti-war struggles and buying time for the warmakers to continue their occupation of Iraq.
Those troops are never coming home.
If our forces revolted, they could load up and head north and hope they could go uncontested through Eastern Turkey to the Black Sea. Russian forces could come down and take them to safe refuge from the NEOCONS. That's the best case scenario I see. Who knows how many Amerikans/Iraqis/Others they'd have to kill to get out.
The way to get out of Iraq is to strike a deal with Iran. I'm sure they'd demand that we recognize their predominance in Iraq, but in return I do believe they'd assure our troops safe passage home.
How does it feel to be in the company of Bush, Cheney, and McCain?
How does it feel to be in the Company of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minn, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other such trash?
You still seem to suffer from the misconception that I'm a Communist. And you're apparently so confused that you lump in Ahmadinejad with the Communists. One would think you're actually a Bush supporter. That's the kind of boneheaded lunacy he and his supporters would be guilty of. You are in dire need of some education about the world.
#34. To: aristeides (#33)
YOU are the one shilling for the Commies on Freedom4um.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestA 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.
#3. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#1)
"My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East."
#4. To: christine (#3)
(Edited)
the fact is, nothing will change in regard to ME foreign policy with anyone from the democrat party. the puppet will do the bidding of his globalist masters.
#8. To: Pinguinite, Pissed Off Janitor, christine (#4)
#14. To: Horse (#8)
The troops have to stay in Iraq until the war with Iran starts.
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
In more than one article I read, the answer was to Afghanistan
#25. To: christine (#24)
For the Record:
Barack Obama on the WarObama's Votes on the War
#26. To: Jethro Tull (#25)
In short, Obama is a war-wolf in sheep's clothing. His empty promises and false advertisements aim only at diverting the American people's anti-war struggles and buying time for the warmakers to continue their occupation of Iraq.
#28. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#26)
(Edited)
Those troops are never coming home.
#29. To: _______ (#28)
#30. To: aristeides (#29)
Fuck Iran
#31. To: _______ (#30)
#32. To: aristeides (#31)
#33. To: _______ (#32)
Replies to Comment # 33.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.