The quoted paragraph below is from the article.
The link below is the article itself.
"It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots."
Perhaps it's that:
1. Obama understands that removing 130,000 troops from an un-pacified Theater of War is not accomplished by waving a magic wand. It requires at least as much planning--maybe more--than the decision to send them there. One--me, for instance--can easily conjure a plausible scenario where we lose as many troops during the withdrawal as we have during the battle and the occupation. And,
2. Obama does not want to repeat the mistakes made by Bush on going in--namely, lack of planning, wishful thinking, unrealistically high expectations--as we go out.
3. With the exception of the political-Gen. Petraeus, one could argue that the military itself will be pleased to call a halt to this Travesty in Iraq, and will supply the necessary tactical information to the new president to best accomplish the goal they both share.
It's really easy to be a kibitzer, like I am and like Tom Hayden is.
To be the President is a much more difficult task, and O is understanding that he's only months away from being The Man.