Obama adviser: Keep 80,000 troops in Iraq

posted at 10:20 am on April 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s adviser on Iraq has written a confidential paper arguing that the US needs to remain robustly engaged in Iraq in order to build on the successes of the past year. The New York Sun’s Eli Lake reports on the confidential paper by Colin Kahl, the coordinator for Obama’s advisory group on Iraq, which foresees the same kind of long-term presence that John McCain has advocated. It calls for a gradual reduction through 2010 to a baseline presence of as many as 80,000 American troops:

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.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.

This has some difficult implications for Obama.  He has made a point of distorting McCain’s remarks about maintaining a strong presence in a post-war Iraq for regional stability.  Now — for the second time — a close adviser offers the exact same policy.

Obama can’t shrug off the statement as five years old, as he apparently did with Tony McPeak.  This analysis comes from contemporaneous review of the situation in Iraq, and it calls into question all of Obama’s assumptions on the issue.  Iraq apparently hasn’t been a total failure, as Obama and the Democrats argue.  Otherwise, Kahl wouldn’t argue that the force needs to remain to “Stay on Success”.

In fact, Kahl winds up arguing for the Bush and McCain policies.  He wants the US to negotiate a long-term strategic partnership with the elected Iraqi government.  Kahl argues for a gradual reduction of combat troops, with a force in Iraq that would assist the Iraqis in training and logistics for their own security operations.  That’s exactly what President Bush has tried to do this year, and what McCain supports.

Obama has two choices.  He can either get rid of Kahl and apologize to the anti-war activists that form his base, or he has to explain why Kahl isn’t calling for “100 years of war”.  In doing so, he will have to acknowledge that he has lied about McCain’s position for weeks and exposed his own ignorance of war, peace, and strategic long-term military planning. I suspect Kahl will find other work in the days ahead.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Agreed on Ms. Kahl’s shelf-life within the campaign. Even if Obama agreed with her thesis, he can’t be seen going along with anything Bush, let alone McCain, is proposing or risk a revolt among his hard core supporters who were foaming at the mouth by last summer that the new Democratic Congress had yet to withdraw every U.S. soldier from Iraq. To do so would risk a Hillary comeback in the final primaries.

jon1979 on April 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM

The rate of withdrawal will probably be very similar under any President. At the end of the day, despite the promises to respective bases, we live in the real world and no one wants to be seen as responsible for Iraq becoming another Iranian proxy state or a cauldron of sectarian killing. Nor do they want to pursue an indefinete “hot war” with no clear strategic gain. The only huge difference between President McCain and President Obama’s strategies, likely, will be the narrative.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when Bush starts reducing troop levels in Iraq prior to the elections, as I believe is currently planned.

joewm315 on April 4, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Ed writes, “Obama has two choices. He can either get rid of Kahl and apologize to the anti-war activists that form his base, or he has to explain why Kahl isn’t calling for “100 years of war stealing McCain’s words lock, stock and barrel.”

After all, isn’t a plagiarist’s motto: they’re “just words”?

Lockstein13 on April 4, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Like I said, Obama has a glass jaw. A salty old pro like McAmnesty will eat him alive in the general.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

People tend to forget the promises that Bill Clinton made before winning the election. Most Democrats count on that fact.

The second Obama takes office, the news from Iraq will begin to trend positive…and will likely focus on the humanitarian work the military is doing. Perversely, it might make the mission easier to complete, as long as the Code Pink arm can keep quiet.

Of course, at that point any success will be granted solely to the Democrats and Obama. If we achieve lasting stability as a trade-off for that, I’ll buy it. The worst case scenario is a failure to complete the task combined with the MSM declaring victory for the Democrat party.

A double-fail indeed.

Asher on April 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Well, at least Senator Obama doesn’t take money from big oil companies!

TooTall on April 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Conjure the image of people on the roof of the US embassy in Baghdad trying to on the last chopper out as the Iranians advance. Maybe the Dems still feel a twinge of guilt for the last time they caused such a scene and would just as soon not repeat it.

Akzed on April 4, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Clearly, Mr. Kahl is a racist.

Matticus Finch on April 4, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Ah, but you see… it really does not matter what his advisors are saying…

His Advisors are making adult type decisions based on the facts as they are… Obama is trying to make the Far Left Feel good…

At this point, there is no way for Obama to retract his stance… he has to keep it at least through the election, and pobably beyond. Facts and reality notwithstanding, too much of his base and Rep are invested in his “I was against the war all along Meme” (even though even his own statements belie that meme).

His one “out” on this is if we start to retreat, and the blood bath starts, and he goes back in for “humanitarian” reasons…

Romeo13 on April 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Like I said, Obama has a glass jaw. A salty old pro like McAmnesty will eat him alive in the general.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

A salty old pro WOULD, but McCain is nothing of the sort. He lacks the will to fight hard enough to win. That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Like I said, Obama has a glass jaw. A salty old pro like McAmnesty will eat him alive in the general.

I’m not so certain.

terryannonline on April 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Stop the car! U-Turn!

Wade on April 4, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Let’s review who Obama has been sparring with in the last few months of the campaign:

Hillary
Silky Pony
Timmy Russert
Chrissy Matthews
Brian Williams
Ellen
Joy Behar
College students

McCain is going to hit this spineless, pandering wordmaster like a ton of bricks when the general election rolls around.

fogw on April 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM

A salty old pro WOULD, but McCain is nothing of the sort. He lacks the will to fight hard enough to win. That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

I am not a McCain fan at all. Amnesty took care of that. But, McCain will surprise you in the general. He is an old scrapper that has stolen a lot of tricks from other politicians over the years. Obama is a greenhorn and McCain will drag him out into the sunshine.

McCain has been fighting with politicians for many years. When you have been in that many fights, you learn plenty of dirty sucessful tricks.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Ms. Kahl’s shelf-life within the campaign. Even if Obama agreed with her thesis

Pretty sure Colin Kahl is a guy…

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM

fogw on April 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Yes, but Obama has the liberal media on his side. They’ve been staying away from McCain since he’s really a non-story right now. Once Obama wraps the nomination they will go after McCain viciously.

terryannonline on April 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM

No reason Obama has to surround himself with yes men.

Yet another sign he’ll make a good president.

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

He lacks the will to fight hard enough to win. That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Too dark, Sean. Your analysis is based on an anti-McCain narrative drawn up in the primaries that is at direct odds with the reality of this moment.

McCain has been slapped around Obama on foreign policy for a couple of weeks, now, and Obama doesn’t like it one bit. He has been surprisingly pointed and even sarcastic about Obama’s ridiculous public statements. Read up, boy.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM

No reason Obama has to surround himself with yes men.

Yet another sign he’ll make a good president.

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM

You have Beclowned yourself.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM

I can look at and listen to Obama and judge him from the perspective of my life experience. He is smart, to be sure, and a likeable guy. Those are his strengths.

His world view and liberal mindset are out of touch with what is left of the American mainstream; his are closer to his pastor and wife. With the enchanted Obama media pushing him along, he should be able to roll through the primary and dem convention. But, when the gloves come off, he will be thrashed like a rented mule and he will get shook to the point that his vinyl siding will begin to peel off.

I don’t think he is tough enough to go toe to toe with the Republican party imagebreakers.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Obama’s far enough along the process, he can start ignoring the anti-war (or more appropriately ‘anti-Iraqi Freedom’, the name of the operation) minions. He could very likely keep Kahl and ignore the issue.

The political goal for quite some time has been to get this done in such a way that the presumed utter failure falls solely on Bush’s shoulders. It looks like some members of the other party are beginning to see that success may be possible and that they’ll gladly take credit for it. However, even a qualified success is very far from a given here; it will take listening to people like Petraeus, something the Dems have eschewed for many years.

michaelo on April 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Well, at least Senator Obama doesn’t take money from big oil companies!

TooTall on April 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/01/oily-obama-some-of-his-best-friends-are-oil-executives/

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Yes, but Obama has the liberal media on his side.

terryannonline on April 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM

As did Gore, and Kerry. The media crucified Bush the idiot while applauding the wisdom and experience of the Democrat wannabes in 00 and 04.

Wishful thinking I know, but maybe, just maybe, there are still enough of us thinkers and doers to put the kabash on the media’s favorite candidate again.

fogw on April 4, 2008 at 11:32 AM

What’s the matter, Jai?

Do you think a president should only hire advisors with the exact same opinions he/she has?

That way didn’t work so well for Bush, did it?

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM

It all comes down to one question: Will Maverick drop the gloves?

You have Beclowned yourself.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Jaibones, if alphie is posting, alphie is beclowning himself. It’s all he’s got.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM

It all comes down to one question: Will Maverick drop the gloves?
Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM

You bet he will. The higher you go, the thinner the air, and the sharper the knives.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Obama has two choices. He can either get rid of Kahl and apologize to the anti-war activists that form his base, or he has to explain why Kahl isn’t calling for “100 years of war”.

That is assuming he’s an honorable man. But he’s not, he’s a politician, so he’ll do neither, and the MSM will help him sweep the issue under the rug.

Socratease on April 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Is Barrack trying to take the king slickster title from Bubba?

Hummer53 on April 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM

McCain has been fighting with politicians for many years. When you have been in that many fights, you learn plenty of dirty sucessful tricks.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM

I’m not saying he doesn’t KNOW the tricks. I’m saying he won’t use them. He’ll try to be pithy and ‘above the fray’ but that won’t get it done. He’s said he won’t engage in negative campaigning, but B. Hussein WILL (and he’ll do it with a smile on his face and the blessing of the MSM). He’ll refuse to engage with required ferocity and it will make him look old and feeble.

McCain has been slapped around Obama on foreign policy for a couple of weeks, now, and Obama doesn’t like it one bit. He has been surprisingly pointed and even sarcastic about Obama’s ridiculous public statements. Read up, boy.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM

To what result? He can ‘slap’ B. Hussein around all he wants, but if the public at large doesn’t see it, it doesn’t happen. Because the MSM won’t carry such things or will diminish the impact, it won’t matter. McShamnesty needs to be much larger in life than he is now. He’s too quiet and perpetually refuses to engage on any sort of forceful level.

Who cares if B. Hussein doesn’t like it? That won’t be covered and eventually he will realize he won’t even have to react.

We were given the guy next in line, an old man who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about conservatives. We’ve been played and unless Cankles somehow gets the nomination we’re looking at President Hussein. Yip.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM

81% of Americans think America is “on the wrong track,” Pablo.

I think it is the “conservatives” who have beclowned themselves.

9 months and counting…

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Ahhh…the other 19% must be where Congress’ approval rating comes from.

BTW, there are no conservatives in charge of anything, so as always, you’ve donned the big red nose and the floppy shoes.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Jaibones, if alphie is posting, alphie is beclowning himself. It’s all he’s got.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM

O Pablo, your timing could not have been more perfect. I refreshed, and found myself in the pitiable position of having to engage alphie in a discussion of politics.

And then — there you were. Gracias.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM

9 months and counting…

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Pablo, you and I will both spend the evening of November 4th listening to the anguished wailing of poor liberal slobs such as alphie as they realize that the Bush term continues for another four years. Last time it was depression counseling; this time?

I can’t wait.

Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Darksean, we’re not in the general yet. While I share your concerns, November is a long way away and April will be long forgotten when it gets here.

I’m looking forward to the debates. And I hope Maverick has it in him to deliver the smackdown he’s perfectly capable of on the policy and the facts, with some measure of Reaganesque charm. In fact, I hope he spends the summer practicing it.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM

De nada, Jaibones. alphie has been thrown out of an awful lot of places and it’s only a matter of time before he gets himself thrown out of here.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Darksean, we’re not in the general yet. While I share your concerns, November is a long way away and April will be long forgotten when it gets here.

I’m looking forward to the debates. And I hope Maverick has it in him to deliver the smackdown he’s perfectly capable of on the policy and the facts, with some measure of Reaganesque charm. In fact, I hope he spends the summer practicing it.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Pablo, I hope you’re right (as much as I can hope that the best we can do is a conservative-hating, Kennedy loving, free speech stealing, amnesty-giving jerk). Honstly. I just don’t see it happening.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Jaibones,

Pablo, you and I will both spend the evening of November 4th listening to the anguished wailing of poor liberal slobs such as alphie…

Oh, hasn’t alphie told you how he’s a conservative yet? A Republican and everything, IIRC.

Darksean,

Old age and treachery will win out over youth and enthusiasm every time. I’m betting that Maverick can bring the treachery when needed, and he’s been around the game long enough to know when that is.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM

People tend to forget the promises that Bill Clinton made before winning the election. Most Democrats count on that fact.
Asher on April 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Before the internet and blogging

right2bright on April 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Right track / wrong track is such a useless stat. It’s rt / wt for whatever reason. If your number is correct, liberals assume that the number means that 81% of Americans want immediate withdrawal from an “illegal, immoral” war. But that 81% also includes those who think we’re not trying to effectively achieve the necessary victory. It’s a stat primarily designed for the benefit of talking heads. rt /wt also includes the sentiments of every voter who has other principal issues. So bo.o.o.o.gus.

On topic: If Oby really wants to solidify his base, he’ll roundly denounce Kahl. It will be interesting to see if he is more concerned about base or swing voters.

eeyore on April 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Google the name and he popps up as a university rat. If Obama gains the WH, I predict the biggest kegger ever for an inauguration bash. It’ll be all downhill after that when the eggheads meet reality and reality wins.

JAW on April 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Old age and treachery will win out over youth and enthusiasm every time. I’m betting that Maverick can bring the treachery when needed, and he’s been around the game long enough to know when that is.

Pablo on April 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I’m not sure he knows how to use old age and treachery on anyone but conservatives. Such a thing would take him quite a way out of his comfort zone.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Maybe Obama plans are building a really big embassy…he said he would keep troops there to protect the embassy…

right2bright on April 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Too bad this didn’t break after the next round of primaries. Obama will have it locked up by then and Clinton will either quit with grace or be an object of mockery from that point on. Once that happens, Obama will start to take more centrist positions, and anyone who wants to attract centrist voters will have to behave like an adult about Iraq. The far left will get left at the alter.

The nice thing about being a Republican lately is that our nominee starts in the center and works his way nowhere. So, we on the hard right get to make peace with our frustration early in the process.

Truthfully, it never really mattered for Iraq who becomes president. They’ll all get the same advice and they’ll all make pretty much the same decisions. The difference after four years may be 10%.

The crappy things that happen under a (D) administration will be appointments and legislation that we probably haven’t yet postulated.

Immolate on April 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM

In doing so, he will have to acknowledge that he has lied about McCain’s position for weeks

I don’t see how Obama “has lied about McCain’s position for weeks”. McCain said, “Make it a hundred!!!”. That is what he said. To not regurgitate everything else that another politician said on a subject is not lieing. And it only in McCain’s wild imagination that Iraq is like Germany and Japan. It’s a lot more like Vietnam.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM

McCain has been fighting with politicians for many years. When you have been in that many fights, you learn plenty of dirty sucessful tricks.

saiga

But will McCain fight a Democrat?

Sure he’s used every dirty trick known when fighting republicans and conservatives, but he hasn’t had many fights against Democrats in those years.

And the only time he ever pulls out the “dirty tricks” is when he’s fighting conservatives. He pulls punches fighting democrats.

If only he were running against a strong conservative republican, then I’d believe he’d fight hard and dirty.

Of course then I’d really hope he’d lose.

gekkobear on April 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM

and anyone who wants to attract centrist voters will have to behave like an adult about Iraq.

The wise man does at once what the fool does finally.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Like I said, Obama has a glass jaw. A salty old pro like McAmnesty will eat him alive in the general.

saiga on April 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

That’s what democrats said about Reagan in 1980.

How did that work out for them?

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM

There’s probably a good quote or two by Obama out there somewhere relating to Bush “firing” Shinseki. If Obama fires this guy, it opens him to the same criticism that the left has leveled at the President for firing those experts that do not agree with his positions. HRC could use this argument, though it is probably too late for her to gain any real benefit from it.

rw on April 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM

A salty old pro WOULD, but McCain is nothing of the sort. He lacks the will to fight hard enough to win. That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

This is McCain’s absolute last chance! It’s Hillary’s 2nd, or 3rd to last, and Obama’s 5th, or 6th…Think about this, hard, you too terryann.

9 months and counting…

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Until you will cry hysterically, along with Europe, Central/South America and a few others. The media will again print “How can (this time) 65 million Americans be so stupid?” – why, because this time the independents will screw you lefties, really hard.

MB4, do you want Obama to win? If you say “yes”, why? If you say “no, I want McCain to lose”, what’s the alternative, in the realistic absence of a viable 3rd party candidate?

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM

I don’t see how Obama “has lied about McCain’s position for weeks”. McCain said, “Make it a hundred!!!”. That is what he said. To not regurgitate everything else that another politician said on a subject is not lieing. And it only in McCain’s wild imagination that Iraq is like Germany and Japan. It’s a lot more like Vietnam.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Let me school ya there MB.
The ENTIRE QUOTE:

McCain responded, “Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day.”

What Obamaloser is saying is that we will be spending $150 billion a year in Iraq for 100 years if it were up to McCain. That is a lie and I heard him say it myself.
We don’t spend that in Japan, Korea etc.

Obama is a liar and I am licking my chops at the debates.

Did you catch the letter he sent to Obama when Obama lied to him about some bipartisan thing they were working on in the senate and then when the rubber met the road chickenshit Obama backed out?
It was snarkalicious!!

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM

9 months and counting…

alphie on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Until I can go on kos and whip them into a frenzy!!
Bwahahahah!

http://armyaunt.johnmccain.com/

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM

That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

He said he wouldn’t attack him personally.
And there is no need to.
His positions are attackable enough and the 527′s will do the personal attacks via Wright.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Obama’s lies, and the list keeps growing – it’s courtesy of RushBaby, from yesterday’s Obama smoking thread.

I’m sure they all have a compendium of such, but these are pretty blatant, and the year is new…

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM

MB4, do you want Obama to win? If you say “yes”, why? If you say “no, I want McCain to lose”, what’s the alternative, in the realistic absence of a viable 3rd party candidate?

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Entelechy: Your illogical approach to politics does have its advantages on occasion, MB4.
MB4: I prefer to call it inspired.
Entelechy: As you wish.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM

I know math is not my strong point, but I’m pretty sure that “through 2010″ and “100 years” aren’t exactly equal.

ChenZhen on April 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM

MB4, as you were.

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM

You didn’t answer the question though.
Do you want Obama to win?

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM

We don’t spend that in Japan, Korea etc.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM

And Iraq is not Japan, Korea etc. Well not unless the etc means Vietnam.

The hundred years is not the important part. The real issue is McCain’s analogies. There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Do you want Obama to win?

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.

Now you may say that is unrealistic, but no more so than thinking that McCain is a conservative.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM

He/she? Have we had a she? Dumb/idiot.

2Tru2Tru on April 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Obama will just say he always would assume what he`d do on Iraq based on conditions on the ground (as Bush has said). And, that if he felt some troops were needed to train and assit the Iraqis, the troops would be there (as McCain wants).

He`s a two-faced lair.

ThePrez on April 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM

So, let me get this straight.

Implausible:

There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq.

Plausible:

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.

Interesting…

gekkobear on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

And Iraq is not Japan, Korea etc. Well not unless the etc means Vietnam.

The hundred years is not the important part. The real issue is McCain’s analogies. There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM

The hundred years IS the important part because that is what BHO is lying about.
And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan etc, then can you see it’s the same as the troops we have left in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
It is the same, maintaining stability, or at least helping to maintain stability in an otherwise unstable place.
I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse that you cannot see that.

I kind of think you are an Obama guy, but just don’t want to say it.

http://armyaunt.johnmccain.com/

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM

One thing I left out, The militaries role for the 100 years is after the war is one.
He is not talking about their role at the present time.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding that.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM

one = won

Sheesh!

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.
Interesting…

gekkobear on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

You seem to have missed the context (but no more so than thinking that McCain is a conservative) a bit.
Interesting…

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM

gekkobear, HA is a place for wit, nuance, and some thought-tolerance. Appreciate the differences, especially from the same side.

MB4 is just frustrated by the conservatives’ choice for this year, and as a Vietnam vet, not so crazy about war, but especially nation building. He was for the captures and demise of Saddam, as he posted often enough on that topic. It would be boring if we all agreed, all the time.

It is tough this year, because simply all 3 options are pretty insane ones, and we’re stuck, not only on the Iraq topic.

Alas, some of us can live with it easier than others.

ArmyAunt, thanks for your valiant efforts.

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM

The militaries role for the 100 years is after the war is one.

So what are you saying? That the hundred years would start in what? Maybe another hundred years? That would mke it two hundred years then.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding that.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM

No, I do not believe so.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Entelechy: MB4 is just frustrated by the conservatives’ choice for this year.

MB4: Interesting choice of words, “just frustrated”. You have a gift for understatment, Entelechy.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM

And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan etc

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I do not see what is not there.

It is not at all like Japan. Now it is more than a bit like Vietnam however.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Well we will have to agree to disagree MB4.
In any case, I very much appreciate your service to our country.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM

And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan

The people of Japan are not in any simular state of affairs with each other as they are in Iraq. It is in fact clearly not like Japan.

then can you see it’s the same as the troops we have left in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

Unlike Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the threats to Iraq’s security are mostly internal, not external. Again nothing much at all alike.

Try comparing Iraq with Vietnam. You will do much better that way.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Oh, my…summer 2008 is going to be HOT!

SouthernGent on April 4, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Ed, Obama doesn’t have to even acknowledge the two choices you suggest. Most of the people who would vote for him don’t make a habit of reading.

burt on April 4, 2008 at 6:13 PM