Contrary to Obama's pledge to his antiwar base, Kahl's position papers talked of leaving behind "a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000 to 80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
In his New York Times column, Obama says nothing about the size of the "residual" military force he would leave in Iraq for the short term. His liberal base is already grumbling about signals that he is softening the pace of his withdrawal, which he says would be made in consultation with the U.S. military commanders on the ground and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
But in an op-ed filled with contradictions, Obama grudgingly concedes the military surge he opposed -- and predicted would fail -- has worked. Still, he persists in his intention to pull out under a 16-month timetable in the midst of winning the war.
Obama knows he cannot afford to further inflame his base, which is already outraged by his embrace of Bush's terrorist surveillance bill, gun rights, Bush-light faith-based programs and other moves toward the center.
The Democratic left has been breathing down his neck for weeks over suspicions he will abandon them on Iraq once he is elected. Long before his recent policy flip-flops, liberals sensed his withdrawal plan was not all it was cracked up to be.
"What he is offering is a basic vision of withdrawal with muddy particulars ... destined to meet an even muddier reality on the ground," wrote New Republic senior editor Michael Crowley in May.
"When it comes to Iraq, whatever the merits of Obama's withdrawal plan may be, 'Yes, we can' might ultimately yield to 'No, we can't,'" Crowley said then.
Indeed, Obama has spun from pulling all the troops out as quickly as possible to writing in the Times Monday that he hoped combat forces would be out by the summer of 2010, but with residual forces remaining behind just in case -- a breathtaking change in positions.
But his "refined" policy comes with a number of other caveats, such as, "In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments." What does that mean? His advisers think it means keeping more troops in Iraq than he wants to admit right now.
Indeed, unlike his shoot-from-the-hip style in the primaries, he talks now about making sure that "our interests (in Iraq are) protected."
Breaking faith with voters who nominated him is hurting his candidacy. A Washington Post poll this week found voters split on setting a timetable for withdrawal, with John McCain edging out Obama 47 percent to 45 percent on who would better handle the war.
A Newsweek poll now shows the Arizona Republican leading among independents by 41 percent to 34 percent. A month ago, Obama led 48 percent to 36 percent.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.