What Obama didn't say is more frightening than what he said is reassuring. Never once did he use the phrase "bring the troops home", instead he said over and over that the troops would be "redeployed". He doesn't say where those troops would be redeployed, but it seems rather obvious that those troops would be "redeployed" to Afghanistan, especially after promising two combat brigades to that country. In other words, Obama is not going to end the war, he's going to transfer the war to another theater.

Nice to see that very little has changed among so-called Democrats, progressives & liberals: We still do everything we can to tear down our candidates and hamstring our chances of victory in November. Interesting that the OP and the two comments before mine spent as much time addressing what wasn't in Senator Obama's Op-Ed as what was, with no acknowledgment that this wasn't a book, a position paper, a press release, or a major policy address. People do understand the purpose of an Op-Ed, right?

Senator Obama's Op-Ed was a clear, concise expression of his fundamental positions as it relates to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clear and concise needed to go hand in hand here: Concise because the NYT wasn't going to give him his own 12 page fold-out section in which to articulate his views. Clear because (and this is already happening), the Bush mis-Administration, the McCain Campaign, and apparently some significant population on the American left have a difficult time handling any level of nuance without incorporating their own distortion.

Senator Obama didn't use the expression "bring the troops home" because that expression is ultimately an empty slogan. Some of the troops would be coming "home". Some of the troops would be going to Afghanistan. Some of the troops would be returning to their bases in other countries. "Bring them Home" is a bumper sticker, not an order you sign or execute. Senator Obama DID use the word "redeployed" because that's what you do with troops as a Commander-in-Chief. Electing Barack Obama is not a "get out of the military free" card. In the run up to the Iraq War, troops were redeployed to Kuwait, ships in the Gulf and other staging areas, from Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Germany, the United States, and everywhere else that currently houses the U.S. military. They were REDEPLOYED. Regardless of how the conflict in Iraq concludes, those troops who remain in service and are not guarding the embassy and other consular objectives will be REDEPLOYED. Some will be staged in Kuwait. Some will go back to Germany or South Korea. Some will return to the United States. And yes, some will go to Afghanistan. There's a little project going on there which may have escaped attention in the BevD household... Taliban? Al Qaeda? Have you heard these words before?

And Mariann2, I hope I'm not misunderstanding what you were trying to say, but the Maliki government absolutely provided vindication recently, and it wasn't just Senator Obama's position that was vindicated (since he was by no means alone in calling for timetables). It was the Bush Administration's position that was rejected. One thing Bush and McCain seem to have in common is a love for vague "benchmarks" which can then be gamed depending on how close we are to an election. John McCain has said he doesn't care how long it goes on, and that he wants to stay until people stop shooting at our soldiers, and only then does he want to figure out how many of 100 years they'll be there. In other words, indefinitely. So his benchmark is essentially "forever minus one calm day". But no matter how many times Dick Cheney sits down to chuckle about his disregard for polls or death counts or the suffering of American families, the American people have been consistent in saying that they want this war to end. And Barack Obama has been consistent in saying he wants to end it. And Prime Minister Maliki has joined that chorus on behalf of the Iraqi people by saying he will not accept a Status of Forces agreement without laying out exactly the sort of timetable that Bush, Cheney, & McCain seem to think emboldens the terrorists. So are Americans and Iraqis the terrorsts they don't want to embolden? Is Al-Maliki? Is the entire government that our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen propping up a bunch of terrorists? If not, we should respect their sovereignty. If so, we shouldn't let another service man or woman die defending them. So it's not Senator Obama who is painted into an inconvenient box by those sneaky little facts...

Returning to the original post, I'm not sure I understand the basis for all the concern and handwringing. Again, it's an Op-Ed. It isn't supposed to be detailed; it's a framework. The target audience is not defense and foreign policy wonks, but rather voters and members of the media that have been parroting the distortion of his recent remarks and claiming that he has "flip-flopped" on Iraq. His position is consistent and it is more consistently in line with the majority of the American people than John McCain's "position". McCain can only win by dulling the contrast. This re-establishes the contrast.

Was this the appropriate venue to discuss the connection between Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Absolutely not. Of course they are interconnected, but for the purposes of this Op-Ed, that framework is irrelevant. Think simply: George W. Bush sold Iraq as being payback for 9/11. Even though they were unrelated, 2 years later, he made it stick. War in Iraq diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan, where the planners of 9/11 were given sanctuary. And now, 7 years later, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Why? Because George took his eye off the ball. The news cycle is increasingly shifting back to Afghanistan, and the news is not good. In the average person's mind, what does any of this have to do with the Gaza Strip? The choice between Obama and McCain needs to be framed in a simple narrative: Bush took his eye off the ball when it was time to capture or kill the planners of 9/11. A McCain Administration will be nothing but repeating the same mistakes. Obama wants to get our troops out of a conflict that never should've been authorized and never should've taken place so that the focus can return to making sure that Al Qaeda and the Taliban don't regain their sanctuary in Afghanistan (not to even mention completely taking over Pakistan). In the average person's mind, that doesn't have anything to do with "Jerusalem," "Right of Return," or "pre'-67 borders." I trust President Obama to understand and address the interconnectedness of the region. I don't want to hear Candidate Obama talking about it.

Lastly, regarding the potential size of a residual force in and around Iraq: What size do you want? If we're going to have an embassy in Iraq, it will likely be defended by United States Marines. How many of them do you think will do the trick? And if we're going to continue to provide support and training to the Iraqi Military so as to minimize the potential that they are completely over-run, how many troops do you think that will take? Or are you in the crowd "bring them home" crowd that thinks that John McCain equals "all the troops stay" while Barack Obama equals "all the troops come home"? There were troops in Kuwait before this fiasco started, and presumably will be after it is over. They would be included in a residual force. Or would they be a part of the "bring them home" bumperstick movement? And there would be sailors, airmen, & Marines in the Gulf and on ships throughout the region. Or are we bringing them home as well?

Ultimately, my point is this: I don't have a problem with this discussion. I don't have a problem with anyone asking these questions of Barack. I don't think Barack should be above critique. But the NYT Op-Ed was designed to achieve a very specific aim, and I haven't seen any evidence that it was anything other than a success in terms of execution. Those desiring nuance and detail should seek it where it is appropriate. The message of the Op-Ed was that John McCain is the status quo, while Barack Obama represents an end to a war that was based on lies and a deception, and a mistake from the moment it was authorized. Mission Accomplished.

I loved the Op-Ed for what it said, which was a lot given the normal game of spouting jingos, ducking tough calls, and blowing smoke, i.e. "straight talk" from the Express and their friends. It was a lot even in a normal world where ideas are welcomed to the debate.

What it didn't say, particularly the Hagel-style linking of conflicts, says more about us than Obama, (IMHO.) Some important allies in the fight to regain control of the US government from the likes of Cheney and Wolfowitz et al are too willing to bolt if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets too close to center stage. I wish it were otherwise. A coalition must be built and some changes can only happen slowly, therefore certain subjects get a more quiet treatment.

That's how this bub from the hinterlands views the "missing" words.

You seem to have inside info on the residual force. I trust your friend is way off base, by a factor of 80. Otherwise Obama's words don't add up and I see no reason to doubt him on this. Personally I hope residual force is in the dozens or less, advisors, working side-by-side peacefully with all the other players, including our adversaries. A full-court diplomatic press by pros can make that happen and pointing out that the Iraqi call for a timetable is an opportunity was brilliant. It is a golden opportunity.

It's interesting to me this is receiving so little attention. The Democratic presidential candidate lays out his Iraq policy in an NYT op-ed, to be followed up tomorrow by a major speech on the subject. The blogosphere, which on other occasions might tend to push the argument that Iraq is the most important issue facing America today, seems to be focusing its attention elsewhere.

Disclosure of intentions would most certainly have their own effects.

Your question reminds me of the covert vs. overt policy discussion that was prominent in the Old TPM Cafe when the ISG report first came out. There were many who expressed the opinion that the report did not represent a specific plan of action so much as a series of messages intended to influence different groups. This view was expressed by both defenders and opponents of the present administration.

I reject the either/or judgment in the matter. While no executive government can be effective if it reveals everything it wants or doesn't operate outside of public channels, the other extreme leads to a vacuum where the executive is accountable for nothing and is unburdened by the need to deliver any planned result revealed to others.

In Iraq, the critical issue is becoming whether the U.S. can accept the formation of strong communities there. Whatever other purposes (and pocketbooks) it may serve, the present state of endless emergency will not permit anything like that to happen.

Any meaningful change of course has to start with turning the sirens off.