On a strategy for troop withdrawal and residual presence in Iraq, at least:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), President Obama’s campaign opponent, went to the White House Thursday for a briefing on the president’s plan for a timetable for a troop drawdown in Iraq. Before heading down Pennsylvania Avenue, he said he was already largely on board.
McCain said he would not be advising the White House as to what he thought was the best plan, but rather hearing them out.
“They’re going to present us their recommendations. It’s their plan,” he said. “From what I know about it, I agree with it.”
For McCain, the plan has virtue because it is backed by the generals and the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. “I like it best because it’s what Ambassador Crocker and General [Raymond] Odierno and General [David] Petraeus also felt was a suitable strategy,” said McCain.
Nancy Pelosi disagrees — which bring us to comments made here by Jitter and others… does it seem that Nancy Pelosi (and Harry Reid, et al.) tries to politically ‘cock-block’ what the Obama administration is trying to do?
Sure Nancy, there may be a larger-than-you-would-like residual force left in Iraq (Obama says approximately 50,000 troops, Pelosi wants closer to 15,000), but most Americans want to see troops leaving Iraq. With a smaller force there, redeployment rates will decrease. Stop-loss will decrease or completely end. Troops having to serve three, four and five tours in Iraq will be a thing of the past.
I don’t want to see ANY troops in Iraq, but 50,000 is far less than the current level (142,000). The whole point is that troops will begin to leave en masse, and to me — that is nothing but a good thing.
[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]