What Honeymoon?

President elect Barack Obama has not even taken the oath of office and already the editorial board at the NY Times is taking pot shots at him. In an editorial entitled "Shifting Troop Targets", the board pleads for the President elect to live by his campaign promise to pull troops out in 16 months.

Even Mr. Obama, who campaigned on withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months (roughly May 2010) has signaled flexibility by saying he will listen to his generals.

What are the generals saying? According to The Times’s Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, the commanders’ new military plan would leave troops in place beyond Mr. Obama’s timetable. And there is talk about redefining solders as “trainers” or “advisers” so that they do not have to leave the cities in June. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that even after 2011, “several tens of thousands” of troops will remain.

If conditions deteriorate, Washington may have to slow the withdrawal pace. But, for now, we urge Mr. Obama to stick to his campaign pledge to pull combat troops out in 16 months.

During the campaign, I was taken to task by several Obama backers when I said that this campaign promise would go by the wayside the instant that the president elect got his first "Presidential Daily Brief". The true believers were adamant that Obama was "different" and that he would "live up to his word" to bring change to American policy in Iraq. Given his announcement that he would be retaining the services of current Defence Chief Robert Gates and the vast majority of his people at the DOD, I can't help but wonder exactly what kind of change Obama's supporters thought they were going to get.

Oh and as far as changing our "standing" in the world....well if the comments to this op-ed are any indication.....

It appears that the U.S. Government's intention is to maintain troops in Iraq as long as necessary to maintain control of Iraq's oil.

— Victor, Dhaka Bangladesh

It does not appear that will be changing anytime soon either.