On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> [Ah, "reality."]
>
> [when withdrawal doesn't really mean withdrawal...]
>
> New York Sun - April 4, 2008
> <http://nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010>
>
> Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010 By ELI LAKE,
> STAFF REPORTER OF THE SUN
>
> 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.
Just to clarify, this is a fudging of the 16 months idea, but not at all a fudging of the withdrawal idea. In fact, the withdrawal is much stricter now than it was when O was campaigning. During the campaign he made it clear that when he said everybody out in 16 months, he wasn't counting a sizeable residual force of 10s of thousands that he was considering leaving behind indefinately; it was one of the most anti-anti-war things about his position. But now, under the new Status of Forces Agreement, assuming its ratified in the referendum, the US has a made a binding commitment to get all troops and all "associated civilians" out by the end of 2011:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/SE_SOFA.pdf
(See Article 24, No. 1. Plus Article 1, No. 2 for expansive definition of "US Forces.")
People have pointed out serious loopholes in this agrement when it comes to the US notifying the Iraqi government before undertaking attacks, and about Iraqi legal jurisdiction of US service members. But I haven't heard of any loopholes in regard to this commitment to pull out everyone without remainder.
Michael