Obama will not withdraw from Iraq
as I have been arguing repeatedly, no Democratic President will leave Iraq. This is just further evidence.
and, frankly, I think "conditional engagement" is valid and that a total withdrawal of all combat forces would be foolish to our self interest as well as Iraq's. Withdrawal and stay the course need not be the only options. Staying the course as McCain would have us do is of course untenable, but there is a blood cost to total withdrawal as well.
A good question for Obama would be, does he support the Euston Manifesto? Where does he disagree, if at all?
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)."
and, frankly, I think "conditional engagement" is valid and that a total withdrawal of all combat forces would be foolish to our self interest as well as Iraq's. Withdrawal and stay the course need not be the only options. Staying the course as McCain would have us do is of course untenable, but there is a blood cost to total withdrawal as well.
A good question for Obama would be, does he support the Euston Manifesto? Where does he disagree, if at all?
Comments
For those of us who want all the way out of Iraq, "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is the major vehicle, and we're adapting to the notion of being in opposition to a Democratic president, too.
I think you're wrong about Iraq. We're now involved willy-nilly in taking sides in an endless civil war; given our resources vs. Iraqis, that simply prolongs that Sunni vs Shia vs. Shia civil war and postpones a political settlement rather than hastening one. The recent episode of supporting Maliki vs Badr bears me out, I think.
At any rate, i have seen the Responsible Plan but without the chess piece of some troop presence in Iraq, I don't see how any of the other relevant planks (diplomacy, humanitarian concerns) can be executed. I would be very grateul for a debate on this, though, especially if you were to critique my piece on "blood cost of withdrawal" in particular.
As far as Iraq's situation now, there is no civil war. Thats finished. Maliki and Sadr are both Shi'a - and the misconception that the problem is still Suni vs Shia violence is prevalent on the left. Overall I find the level of information very poor among those who advocate total wthdrawal.
In Iraq now it's basically an armed power struggle between Shi'a factions, layered onto a number of other issues, all of which are resolvable with better leadership in Washington - which we get in 2009. But in the absence of some meaningful troops in the country, we tie our hands.
To be honest, if you read the VSP crowd (Aardvark, CSIS, AF, etc) regularly you will see a very different picture of Iraq emerge than what you get from the leftblogsphere.
I have corrected the post.
I would appreciate it if you took another look at the post to see if the correction is acceptable.
Thanks.