No worries Ron. Iraq has long been a sore spot with me. 

That Obama has greatly improved things on the foreign policy front is w/out question.  It’s also true that the constraints of the “hard material world” will force Obama (or anyone) to modify their plans — but, we’ve got to leave, no ifs, ands, or buts.

As far as “much better than Bush” wrt Iraq only and at this point — well, it is unclear to me that 50K troops is better than 120K troops.  It might actually be worse.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position from both your comment here and other comments. I thought you were taking the position (which I do hear from time to time) that there is not much of a difference between Bush and Obama.  The post was written with bot your comment and comments from others in mind, and was written before your clarification in the subsequent comment.

Arguing that Obama should be getting out quicker, or that he shouldn’t leave a residual force, are definitely valid arguments to make. I just object when people claim either than Obama is now doing different from what he said when running or that he is not much better than Bush.

If not both for public opposition and the Constitutional limitations, if Bush could remain in office and do as he chooses I bet he would be leaving far more than twice as many people in Iraq than Obama.

With regards to what he said to win the nomination, such a residual force is consistent with his campaign statements. He never left it as simply “ending the war” without any qualifications.

Moreover, I think it’s a mistake to kid glove this the way I think Ron has — everyone, esp. the left, needs to keep reminding Obama about his promise and keep the pressure on to get out ASAP. 

The Iraqis want us out ASAP, most American’s want us out ASAP. There’s no vital national security reason to be there, what’s Obama waiting for?  A guarantee nothing bad will happen after we leave?  There’s no guareetee, and we can easily be waiting around forever if we’re waiting for “conditions to be right.”

“Ironically, we have Iraqi lawmakers to thank for endorsing an agreement between the Maliki government and the outgoing Bush administration that puts pressure on President Obama to remove all U.S. military personnel from Iraq by a date certain. The Obama White House has said that they will abide by that agreement.”

If the administration can abide by this agreement, and if it really will be 2011 (too long for my tastes), then the “war” is effectively over.  However, like a “check in the mail,” I’ll need to see this before I believe it, and Obama’s actions so far have not raised my confidence.

Good heavens! I never said that!  But — yeah, I’d say they’re more similar than different when comes to what’s actually happening on the ground. 

Your post conflates a true honest overall change and stance in foreign policy with a real backslide on Iraq. They’re completely different issues. Just because Obama gets points (well deserved) for one doesn’t means those points apply to the other.

And, ah, where’s the withdrawal part of Obama’s plan?  Will  those 50,000 troops be there just to sight see? 

Remember: Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Is there some other definition of “all” I’m not familiar with?

Again, Americans who elected Barack Obama believing that he was likely to end the unpopular Iraq war are NOT  pleased to learn that the bulk of troop withdrawals will not begin until 2010, and that as many as 50,000 U.S. military personnel will remain in Iraq through the end of 2011.
They shouldn’t be surprised, however. Obama always qualified his call for ending the Iraq war by stipulating that a residual force would remain behind, and John McCain’s endorsement of the Obama plan is further proof of the bipartisan support in Washington for a policy that Americans outside the Beltway turned against long ago.
Democrats in Congress were unable to force George W. Bush to end the war, and they seem unlikely to challenge a president from their own party. Ironically, we have Iraqi lawmakers to thank for endorsing an agreement between the Maliki government and the outgoing Bush administration that puts pressure on President Obama to remove all U.S. military personnel from Iraq by a date certain. The Obama White House has said that they will abide by that agreement. “The path we’re on here, the path is not towards any sort of a Korea model,” a senior administration official told the New York Times. “The path is towards reducing, in a fairly substantial way, U.S. forces in 2010 and then down to what’s currently anticipated, down to zero, by the end of 2011.”
A good part of my point is that if, *IF*,  President Obama keeps to that course, we can be confident that the war will eventually come to an end—just not nearly as quickly as the vast majority of Americans had wished.
However, the longer those 50,000 troops stay there, the more likely there will be some incident that will necessary a longer stay (e.g., Iran countering perceived U.S. influence, another attack on the U.S.) or we’ll have a Beirut type of disaster where we’ll just leave and be seen as running away and abandoning Iraq.
Finally, Ron, I support this organization,
Wounded Warrior Project
and I’m sick about still having to do it, sick of watching young men and women come home with shattered bodies, minds, and the lives of all about them in ruins. And FOR WHAT!!!!
I had nephew in Iraq. He came back, but he changed, and not for the better. Tell me FOR WHAT! Ron.

During the primaries, some candidates such as Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich were taking a far more extreme view on getting out of Iraq more quickly. There really wasn’t any great degree of support for this in the Democratic primaries. Of course there was something about Richardson which made it hard to take him seriously as the candidate of  more radical change.

Good times.

Yes, it was an impressive feat of stupidity and arrogance.

President Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it:  in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.”

So it is with great disappointment that  but now has decided keep the war in Iraq going for another 19-20 months, after which we will have about 50,000 American troops in Iraq in what amounts to a permanent presence.

Finally, to add insult to injury:

McCain Backs Obama’s Iraq War Plan

(Sigh)