Was Samantha Power right about Obama’s promises to withdraw? Sure sounds like it:
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.
He’s got another adviser I don’t like.
actually, both clinton and obama’s plans include some kind of “overwatch” contingency plan. the reason why it’s not inconsistent with what obama (and clinton) have promised is because it is contingent (dependent on “facts on the ground”) and also because of the distinction between combat brigades and non-combat brigades (which can still fight if they have to). essentially both candidates are planning to move some of the forces currently in iraq to kuwait, with a contingency plan to move them back into iraq if necessary, whatever that means.
personally, i think “overwatch” is stupid. but it’s also misleading to claim that obama secretly wants to keep troops in iraq. any withdrawal from iraq will require numerous contingency plans because so many things can go wrong. once we get a president in office who has promised to withdraw forces, it will be our job to keep the heat on him/her to make sure s/he doesn’t use the wrong contingency plan.