Obama Adds Nunace to Promise to Withdraw from Iraq

Question: Now that their president is prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

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.

It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.

How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?

How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?

Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?

Apologies: I had to trash the last attempt at this post. The system would not let me add quotes to it; it kept dumping me into a different function every time I tried to save. Sorry, I lost the old comments. I'll bring them back, if I can, by changing the last attempt at this post into an Open Thread.

posted by Ace at 03:23 PM

| Access Comments