Cheat Sheet

Dave1959, Obama's "white flag of surrender" plan for Iraq is basically the same plan Bush and Cheney approved very late in Bush's (Cheney's) second term, after reaching a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi pseudo-government. As a conversation on CNN between Anderson Cooper and Michael "Picasso nose" Ware spelled out plainly:

"[ANDERSON COOPER]: So, Michael, August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. That's what the president said today. If we still have 50,000 troops, which I assume are combat-ready, living in a combat zone and working in a combat zone, what is really different?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well...
COOPER: I mean, how -- how can you say it's really done?
WARE: Well, it isn't, quite simply. I mean, to a degree, this is a political shell game. Fifty thousand troops, in one sense, is not enough to deter anyone who is posing a significant threat to the Iraqi state or the -- the fragile peace that America has put together. But those 50,000 troops will nonetheless be in a war zone. Now, we say they're going to be training Iraqis. You can get shot at doing that. They're going to be advising Iraqis in the field. You can definitely get shot at doing that. And going on counterterrorism raids, well, that speaks for itself.
COOPER: So, they can still be conducting raids...
WARE: Absolutely.
COOPER: ... and they probably will be?
WARE: In conjunction with the Iraqis. Now, let's remember, the Bush administration, that started this war, actually ended it. It wasn't President Obama. The status of forces agreement that was signed at the end of last year and came into effect on New Year's Day says that, within three years of that time, 36 months, American troops will be out of Iraq, no negotiation, no discussion.
COOPER: That's not what the Bush administration wanted it, but they really didn't have much choice. That's what the Iraqis wanted.
WARE: That's it. I mean, essentially, they surrendered their war-fighting capability. And the Iraqis had the whip hand. America didn't have any leverage to force anything different. So, while today's announcement by President Obama is enormously significant symbolically, in effect, it was already done."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/27/acd.01.html

Just another example of how Obama is nothing but window dressing for the continuation of Cheneyite policies. And remember how during the campaign Obama kept repeating the refrain of a drawdown at a rate of one brigade removed from Iraq per month? And that as soon as he's inaugurated he would call his generals and tell them to quickly decide on the nuts and bolts of how this drawdown of one brigade a month was going to be accomplished? Well he was inaugurated on 20th January so being generous let's say this "one brigade per month" drawdown could start not within a couple days of his inauguration but in March or April of 2009. Let's say April to be extra generous. Meaning by the end of the year, nine brigades should already have been removed from Iraq.

Bearing in mind that a combat maneuver brigade (mechanized infantry, armor etc.) has around 4,000 personnel, contrast this with the amount of troops Obama is now saying will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2009:

"The recent increase in violence comes just as President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would withdraw most of its forces over the next 19 months, saying that 12,000 of the 140,000 now there would leave by the end of this year."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63703.html

TWELVE THOUSAND out by the end of the year. Meaning roughly three brigades. What happened to the "one brigade a month" mantra? And will the recent uptick in violence cause further foot-dragging on the withdrawl as some may press for keeping more troops in Iraq than even the (eventual) promised 50,000? Already Gen. Odierno is saying that the "Iraqi" puppet government may "ask" the U.S. to keep troops in Mosul and some other cities well beyond the supposed date for withdrawl of all U.S. forces from Iraqi urban areas.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63703.html

And as an example of how Obama's plan is basically Bush's (or Cheney's I should say, as nobody with any brains thinks that Bush was deciding anything), consider the reaction to it from Republicans and Democrats:

"President Obama announced the withdrawal yesterday of more than 90,000 US combat troops from Iraq by August next year but his decision to keep a force of up to 50,000 was attacked by leaders of his party as a betrayal of his promise to end the war. Mr Obama's drawdown plan was even embraced by Republicans - including John McCain, his election opponent last year - but was criticised by anti-war liberals."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article58178 83.ece

So people of your political persuasion don't need to worry. The "Obama plan" is just the "Bush plan" covered in the unconvincing window dressing of "change" and "a break with the past".