From the office of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee:

“President Obama’s plan establishes a reasonable timetable for redeployment of most of our forces from Iraq by August 2010 as promised by President Obama during his campaign.  However, I had expected that the size of the residual force would have been lower than 35-50,000 troops given the limited missions remaining after the brigade combat teams are removed.”

The question, I suppose, is whether antiwar figures think 16 months — from August 2010 to December 2011, when the Status of Forces Agreement turns the occupation of Iraq into a pumpkin — is too long to keep a force of that size for training/advisory/"limited counterterrorism" missions in Iraq. Presumably, the force wouldn’t even stay at that size for 16 months, since a force sized at several divisions is unlikely to pack all its equipment up and go home in a single day. Three more years in Iraq is indeed a hedged bet, but think about it this way. As a candidate, Obama used to talk about a "residual force" past his old 16-month combat-troop withdrawal plan. The Status of Forces Agreement places a hard deadline on that comparatively open-ended proposal. It’s odd to be surprised by this after Obama spent two years talking about leaving 30,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Crossposted to The Streak.