I’m going to stick up for Obama here (yeah, it does feel weird) and say that he was pretty clear in the latter part of the primaries that when he said he would remove troops from Iraq within 16 months, he was referring to combat troops and that an unnamed number of peacekeeping/training troops would be kept in Iraq on a conditions-based timetable. The problem is that in the beginning part of the year, when Obama was actively courting MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and the other anti-war groups he failed to make that distinction. I guess that impression he made during the first few months of the year must have stuck, because the NYT is experiencing a bit of heartbreak upon discovering Obama’s actual plan for troops in Iraq.
That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011…
There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.
Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis…
To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.
Obama, somewhere around July, realized that McCain made a good point with his 100 years comment. The idea of pulling out combat troops and leaving a residual force behind for a long period of time is exactly what McCain was advocating. And, assuming casualties do stay low, I don’t see Obama completely pulling out of Iraq during his tenure. Will he take and flak for doing so? Likely not. Somehow the anti-war Left will find a way to rationalize this, even when he sends troops into Afghanistan (Pakistan?).
