Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm sympathetic to the point Chris and Matt are making about residual troops. However I think they might have missed some interesting movement from Obama on this issue.
In fact, what I think is interesting is that we're starting to see Obama hedge significantly on residual troops. A new consensus among the Democratic front-runners is emerging on this issue. Obama was clearly exasperated during the Petraeus hearing, and we're starting to hear that.
Here is Obama during his speech in Clinton, Iowa:
We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.
In other words, Obama would support further training Iraqi troops, if and only if it was proven that the government reached political accommodations and security forces we're training cease to serve merely sectarian ends. To my knowledge, Obama never added this precondition before.
But wait, there's more.
And then here's Obama this afternoon in an interview with NPR's Michelle Norris on All Things Considered. He goes even farther:
Norris: So I want to make sure I understand something. Are you advocating a total disengagement from Iraq? Would a President Obama basically take every last American out of Iraq?
Obama: Of course not. We can't totally disengage from Iraq any more than we can disengage with any other part of the world. And we've got both strategic interests and humanitarian interests in the region, but what my plan calls for would continue to involve US troops protecting a US embassy and US personnel there, and US troops who are able to strike at terrorist targets inside Iraq, although the troops themselves and the strike forces might not have to be deployed inside Iraq.
If the Iraqi government comes to a political accommodation, and you've got forces that are non-sectarian and are functioning, then you can continue to serve in a training capacity.
But all this is predicated on triggering the kind of political negotiations and compromise that so far have not been forthcoming from the Iraqi leadership.
So Obama reiterated that training government troops would only take place if it was proven that these troops would not be infiltrated and used to further the civil war --- a political accommodation that Obama himself expresses pessimism about in his last sentence.
Second, his position is that troops striking at al Qaeda in Iraq would not need to actually be stationed in Iraq but in neighboring countries.
To be clear, I don't think this is enough to answer the concerns that Chris and Matt are raising, but there is more movement here than you're giving Obama credit for. Obama is frustrated with the progress, frustrated with Petraeus' testimony, and his plans are changing.
STATE BLOGS
