Iraq: Obama out in 5 years, Mccain out in 50.

I have a feeling some people are missing the point regarding Obama's stance on Iraq withdraw.  The point is he does not want a long term presence in Iraq. Mccain openly says he is ok with long term bases in Iraq. So we are talking about roughly 5 or so years to get 90% of our the troops out of Iraq with Obama (then 5 more years to be totally out), or keep at least 15% to 35% of the current troops levels in Iraq over the next 50 years under Mccain and at least 60% current levels for the next 5 years.

If you listen to many of Obama's foreign and military advisors most of them since the beginning have talk about a careful withdraw, and Obama after staying the 16 month "goal" would almost always follow it with the "as careful getting out, as careless getting in".  I've always read that as, it could take at least twice the time he hopes for with the "goal".  I realize some people here think it’s totally possible and practical get to 95% of the troops out within 6 to 8 months. However Obama has never consider a withdraw for within a 12 month period.

So 16 month timeline with a practical and careful caveat puts him at having most of the troops out before his first term is over.  It’s important as his supporters that we understand this, and we know how to explain first term Iraq withdraw window against Mccain's 50 year "cold-war" approach. We must let Americans know that we are not ok with using our police, nurses, and firefighters in Iraq to serve as the oil companies publically funded military.  That the money spent trying to just hold down the land could be better used here at home.

Invest in America, Instead of Iraq. Vote Democratic.

•  By 16 Months

  Not "after 16 months we'll chat."

  If Obama announced his intention to follow the guidelines you just played out there would be all out mutiny.

  by Detroit Mark on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:00:58 AM PDT

  •  I think it was a mistake for him to even give...

    a timeline, because anyone who bought into that being some solid point is stupid, he frankly doesn't have enough information to even give a realistic timeline, he is just even estimates from various advisors.

    by manumit on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM PDT

•  Ah...

  ...but if it's 50 years of Victory Cash^tm rolling in, isn't that better than only 5 years?

  by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM PDT

•  Robert Gibbs said this morning

  16 months.  And today Iraq said they are considering a timetable.

  by Drdemocrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM PDT

  •  Drudge has Iraq wanting timetable as a headline

    This has to help Obama...

    by Paladine on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM PDT

•  A quote from the nation...

  You just have to love it...McCain talking "victory"...this makes him look like an idiot!

  "But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable."

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  by Paladine on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

•  Funny thing is

  After reading mutiple news reports of Iraqs considering a "timetable" for withdrawal, I checked out Fox news.

  Fox never mentions the word "timetable" once!

  Funny, funny...

  by Paladine on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

•  O: out of Iraq in 5; McC: US GONE in 5 nt

  by sclminc on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM PDT

•  the money wasted on Iraq

  is money that can't be invested in the trillions of dollars of infrastructure investment necessary for American economic and for that matter, physical survival that we can no longer wait for. Iraq has bought us nothing but trouble and throwing good money after bad is the best way to compound this disaster.

  Sooner or later, America's going to max out its credit card... and the War on Iraq is the most important factor that got America into its financial mess with the subprime disaster and the government bailout of the wealthy who created it being just one of the symptoms.

  If I ran a sovereign wealth fund, Obama gets elected, and I heard anything from him other than "troop withdrawal starts in the next 30 days", I'd start dumping my T-Bills. I suspect that other large-scale purchasers of America's debt would stop buying any more of it if a Democratic President buys into the kind of financial mismanagement that "5 more years" implies. "Careful" withdrawal = Bush-league financial disaster.

  Four more years of a major troop presence in Iraq means that in Obama's last year of office, he may be announcing cuts in just about everything (starting with Social Security) rather than spending money on the transition off fossil fuel necessary for America's continued existence. And yes, I'm saying that if we still have a major military presence in Iraq around the end of Obama's first term, there will not be a second term.

  I'm not going to defend a "nuanced" position on Iraq withdrawal regardless of where it comes from. I believe that the question of whether there is going to be an America a generation from now largely comes down to "Do we continue to dump money down the Iraq rathole or not?".

  by alizard on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:11:51 PM PDT