by D. Cupples | In March, Barack Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power indicated to the BBC that Obama wasn't committed to his campaign statements about ending the Iraq war within 16 months after he (if elected) takes office. Many wondered about Obama's sincerity when speaking while on the campaign trail.
In February, Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly told the press that Obama's war-ending plans aren't firm. Now, a different Obama adviser has advocated keeping a strong troop presence in Iraq through 2010. The New York Sun reports:
"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." (NY Sun)
This is not the first issue over which an Obama adviser made a public statement that clashed with one of Obama's campaign positions.
In February, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee reportedly told Canadian officials that Obama's actual stance on NAFTA isn't as negative as his campaign rhetoric.
Days before that story broke, Obama had told viewers of the Ohio debate that Obama would threaten to opt out of NAFTA if the agreement weren't re-negotiated. [The Canadians were nervous, because they like NAFTA.]
Initially, the Obama campaign responded by denying that Goolsbee had conversed with Canadian officials . After Canadian media produced an official memo about the conversation, Obama's campaign ultimately admitted that a conversation had taken place. (No Quarter has a time-line of the Obama campaign's evolving responses.)
About the latest renegade adviser's desire to prolong the Iraq war, the Obama campaign indicated that those views do not reflect the candidate's. The campaign simply seeks to get a broad array of views.
That seems plausible. Sen. Obama does have a knack for surrounding himself with people whose statements differ sharply from those that Obama makes on the campaign trail.
In March, for example, we learned that Obama's intelligence adviser John Brennan supports Telecom Amnesty (an anathema to progressives), while Obama has said that he does not.
What troubles me is that the Colin Kahl story doesn't seem to be getting much mainstream-media attention. I found the stories at the New York Sun and Fox.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Obama's Advisers Less Progressive Than Advertised
* AP Has Memo re: Obama Adviser's NAFTA Comments
* Is MSNBC Biased Toward Obama or Against Hillary?
* Studies Suggest Pro-Obama (or Anti-Hillary) Media Bias
.
Comments