- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 17, 2008
COMMENTARY:

About a week ago I reported in this column that a top defense adviser to Barack Obama was proposing that a large “residual” U.S. military force remain in Iraq under his mercurial troop withdrawal plan. The freshman Chicago Democrat pooh-poohed such reports at the time, saying that those who accused him of changing his position on pulling out all U.S. combat forces from Iraq “haven’t apparently been listening to me.”

But in an op-ed column in Monday’s New York Times, Mr. Obama said he will leave behind “a residual force in Iraq” that would carry out a number of missions, including going after al Qaeda insurgents, defending remaining U.S. servicemen left behind and training Iraqi security forces.

It is hard to follow the swiftly changing positions in his troop withdrawal plan, but at last count it has gone from removing all U.S. military forces to all “combat forces” to his most recent position: pulling out most combat forces with an apparently undetermined number of brigades left behind for the foreseeable future.

In my earlier column, I reported that Mr. Obama’s national security advisers were dropping hints that his redeployment plan would be more flexible and gradual than his earlier calls for a complete pullout, regardless of the combat situation on the ground. The biggest hint came from Colin Kahl, a defense analyst at Georgetown University who is the chief coordinator of Mr. Obama’s working group on Iraq policy. Their job has been to write policy papers that would form the basis of his withdrawal plan.

But in several policy papers and memos, Mr. Kahl didn’t always agree with Mr. Obama’s exuberant rhetoric for a total withdrawal. “Rather than unilaterally and unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq and hoping the international community will fill the void and push the Iraqis toward accommodation - a very unlikely scenario - the United States must embrace a policy of ‘conditional engagement’ ” in Iraq, Mr. Kahl wrote in the July/August Foreign Affairs.

“This approach would couple a phased redeployment of combat forces with a commitment to providing residual support for the Iraqi government if and only if it moves toward genuine reconciliation,” he said.

Mr. Kahl told me in a phone interview that his views did not represent the campaign’s position. But he expressed similar views in other confidential papers for the campaign, and advisers said they have come to reflect the senator’s “emerging thinking” on how to make a troop withdrawal plan work without leaving the Iraqis at the mercy of a renewed insurgency.

Contrary to Mr. Obama’s pledge to his antiwar base, Mr. Kahl’s position papers talked of leaving behind “a sustainable overwatch 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).”

In his New York Times column, Mr. Obama says nothing about the size of the “residual” military force he would leave in Iraq for the short-term. That base is already grumbling about signals he is softening the pace of his withdrawal, which he says occurs in consultation with the U.S. military commanders on the ground and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But in a op-ed filled with contradictions, Mr. Obama grudgingly concedes the military surge he opposed, and predicted would fail, has worked. Still, he persists in his intention to pull out under a 16-month timetable in the midst of winning the war.

Mr. Obama knows he cannot afford to further inflame that base already outraged by his embrace of President Bush’s terrorist surveillance bill, gun rights, Bush-light faith-based programs and other moves toward the center. The Democratic left has been breathing down his neck for weeks over suspicions he will abandon them on Iraq once he is elected.

Long before his recent flip-flops, liberals sensed his withdrawal plan was not all it was cracked up to be. “What he is offering is a basic vision of withdrawal with muddy particulars… destined to meet an even muddier reality on the ground,” New Republic senior editor Michael Crowley wrote in May. “When it comes to Iraq, whatever the merits of Obama’s withdrawal plan may be, ‘Yes, we can’ might ultimately yield to ‘No, we can’t,’” Mr. Crowley said.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has spun from pulling all the troops out as quickly as possible to writing in the Times Monday that he hoped combat forces would be out by summer 2010, but with residual forces remaining behind just in case - a breathtaking change in positions.

But his “refined” policy comes with a number of other caveats, such as, “In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.” What does that mean? His advisers think it means keeping more troops in Iraq than he wants to admit right now.

Story Continues →