Obama Adviser Calls for 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010WASHINGTON — 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..... 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.
I love the way these weebles like to sling around military jargon. "Over-watch posture," forsooth! Brother Kahl (shown left) is a 1993 BA (UMich) and 2000 Phd (Clodumbia U) whose closest
brush with combat was probably his dissertation defense. But man, is he intellectually
muscular! Here's a sample: Too many critics of the war favor a policy of unconditional disengagement from Iraq. Some who take this position believe that nothing America does in Iraq can be of positive and lasting consequence.... This strategy ignores the very real contribution American forces are making to preventing a resurgence of civil war in Iraq.
The "Center for a New American Security" (was there ever an old one?) is a recent arrival in the bewildering swarm of Washington think tanks -- a wonderful phrase, by the way: places where people think as if they were in a tank. Still, why do we need so many? They all say the same stuff. Their logos all have a flag. Their mission statements are almost word-for-word identical. Who pays for this stuff, and why?
CNAS (pronounced "con-us", I think) seems highly respectable though new. Its board of directors includes Dick Armitage; serene, unconflicted mass murderer Madeleine Albright; John Podesta; several revolving-door types, formerly in government, now executives (or hood ornaments) at defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed; and the obligatory handful of generals. Democrats love generals.
If this is the sort of place where Obama is looking for "change", it's likely to be pretty small change.
Comments (6)
He looks a bit like an undertaker. His proposal is a fatuous rehash of the 2006 plan to force "the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down". They're not getting their money's worth from this otiose bozo. Any sufficiently prolix yuppie with a doctorate can take the Baker Hamilton report and derive a three porridge bowl compromise scenario. And if he really believes there's any intent to give up the "enduring bases", he's not only a lazy bozo, he's an idiot.
Posted by Al Schumann | April 6, 2008 2:33 AM
Posted on April 6, 2008 02:33
Wow. I was quite sure there wasn't anybody who ought to be handed an M-16 and a flak jacket and immediately deployed to Sadr City before all the politicians who voted to authorize and fund the invasion, Killary and the Obaminator distinctly included.
Now, I wonder if perhaps I didn't miss by one person.
Posted by Michael Dawson | April 6, 2008 1:41 PM
Posted on April 6, 2008 13:41
hmmm and it goes on like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/hillaryclinton.uselections2008
Posted by yo-ma-yo! | April 7, 2008 2:39 AM
Posted on April 7, 2008 02:39
simian grin ????
total fucking noodle head
comes to mind
as a catch all description
my lord another elf steps forth
from beneath
the twenty mile limit
of the obama-nation
Posted by op | April 7, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted on April 7, 2008 10:24
the
banality
of weasel
Posted by Michael Dawson | April 7, 2008 1:39 PM
Posted on April 7, 2008 13:39
human pocket protector
Posted by op | April 7, 2008 3:06 PM
Posted on April 7, 2008 15:06