Fully realise that Artbrooks.

What I said however, was that what was stated on the site was "Rather short on detail and analysis isn't it" and I was not talking about Movement Orders:

from the Obama '08 Site:

"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Let's take a look at this in detail, could do the same for the others they all fall down in the same way.

- "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."
This states clearly that withdrawal begins immediately irrespective of conditions on the ground, or on advice or requirements of commanders in the field - Not such a wise move is it Artbrooks? or maybe you disagree.

- "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month,"
Now unless things have altered a great deal in the way the US goes to war, the biggest logistical problem in complying with Obama's intention would be the staged draw down of support units so that those that are left can be supplied and supported adequately (Give you an idea - 4/5ths of your troops in Vietnam were support units not combat troops).

- "Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq"
That's awfully nice of him. Mind you it was never written within the terms of the UN mandate that the MNF currently operates under that any permanent bases were to be built in Iraq. Bilateral agreements between the USA and the Government of Iraq are different, so this statement could apply to any discussion of permanent bases based on such bilateral agreements.

- "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;"
Now to do this he will have to keep troops in Iraq? Sort of like those US Marines in Beirut? Won't they need a permanent secure base in Iraq? Which is sort of at odds with what he's just said isn't it?

- "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"
Just to make sure that we all understand what the man is proposing here. He again says that he is going to keep troops in Iraq (In which case they require a permanent base, which he says he is not going to build), or he keeps the troops elsewhere in the region (Now this would imply a US Marine Assault Group plus all supporting elements permanently cruising the waters of the Northern Persian Gulf - OR - It means another state in the area playing host to a permanent US base on their soil. The uptake to fulfil this role by states in the region of course will be massive, the US having just been seen to have been as comprehensively defeated politically and militarily as it was in Vietnam). And these troops whether ashore wherever, or afloat are there to "carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"? Is Obama saying that he intends attacking an independent sovereign state as the whim takes him. Sort of like that Delta Force Op that "Peanut" Carter gave the go ahead to. In all of this where is the intel coming from? You get it now because you are there and there in force, withdraw and all that disappears.

Sorry Art & Bobert that is not a plan. It's fuzzy, it's muddled, it lacks clarity, it "reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square roof of f**k-all to me".

With signals like this coming out of the campaign HQ of someone who at present is the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States of America at the election in November, no wonder the Shia population of Iraq are restive and looking to Iran - It's history repeating itself, you guys have left them in the lurch once before, haven't you.