barack op-ed in the nytimes.

i know my posts have been far and few between lately. to be honest, they will continue to be sporadic for the time being. i hope to move to a new URL, and increase consistency during the fall. thanks for continuing to read...

---

that aside, i recommend a quick read of sen. obama's op-ed in today's nytimes. the senator highlights one of the most divisive issues between the two candidates: the iraq war.

there are consistent accusations that sen. obama's plan is hasty and entails leaving "before the job is done". the senator's plan does not appear to reveal any signs of rash decision making or suggestions of a hasty exit:

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

the oft made argument that exiting = surrender is addressed by obama as well:

They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States.

i'd be interested to know whether any of you believe there are major holes in sen. obama's approach. i'm sure sen mccain will argue as such, and i await to see how directly he refutes this op-ed piece.