This thread is based upon an article from the neue Zuercher Zeitung, April 8, 2008>>>>
Senator McCain is clear and speaks clearly about his position on IRAQ. "If we want to succeed, we must strengthen ouor presence there." The poll driven stands by Obama and Clinton present slogans yet no truly clear positions. Both do not dare to fully disclose the realities of this key issue.
t is widely known that Obama as well as Clinton promote an end to the military engagement in IRAQ. Obama promised to pull out 2-3 brigades each month as off his start of tenure as US president. He does however not mention, how many US troops are to remain in the country.
A few days ago, a strategy paper was revealed in Washington, in which his political advisor promotes a military presence of at least 80,000 troops in IRAQ until at least 2010.
Colin Kahl, the author of the strategy paper is a close advisor to Obama. Even a closer look at Obama's website leads to believe that Obama is not necessarily promoting a complete and utter withdrawal out of IRAQ ( as publicly stump speeched). If Al Khaeda should gain ground there, US troops should be able to take counter measures immediately....But where to base these troops, Obama does not talk about... Clinton is much more frank. her first act as commander-in-chief will be to withdraw immediately ( but will take 2 months of consulting with the generals in the field first..) The above insecurity about the factual positions of Clinton and Obama may become one very difficult question in the future. They almost painted themselves in a corner here in the eye of the American public. Publicly promising an immediate retreat, yet mostl likely being forced in the future to correct that course, as it will be almost impossible to renege on a military presence in this mission critical region.
Will this become another "read My Lips" situation - but this time for Obama or Clinton? While Obama publicly stands for complete and immediate retreat, his factual ambivalency leads to the conclusion that he wants to keep all options on the table.
It further leads to an impression of the same John Kerry (unsuccessfully) did and was held against him as flip-flopping.
Obama will (after an election) with a high probability be forced to "adapt" his promises due to the geostrategic situation.
He will leave troops there and these toops will remain engaged for some time to come. Breaking his election promise though will cost him dearly in the eyes of his core voter base.
In conclusion there is a high probability that once again candidates try to gain voters by promising them the impossible, then lateron have to reverse course due to "changing circumstances".....
In this case it is foreseeable and based upon inexperience, naivety or sheer political opportunism. I surely hope the American people will not make the mistake of buying the Obama or Clinton promises now, only to have to call them liars and flip floppers later.