On the April 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough failed to challenge Sen. John McCain's false suggestion that Sen. Barack Obama has only “in the last few days” proposed that a “strike force” remain in Iraq after the United States withdraws most troops. McCain told Scarborough that “Senator Obama, in the last few days, said he wanted a, quote, 'strike force,' a strike force in Iraq.” McCain continued: “I really would be interested, Joe, in hearing what exactly what that means, after he has continuously said he would withdraw immediately or yesterday or whatever it is.” Scarborough replied: "[W]hen he's talking about a strike force, that kind of reminds me of [former secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld. I mean, maybe Rumsfeld's his secret military adviser." Similarly, on the April 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron uncritically aired McCain's claim that Obama “has now said that he would keep a, quote, 'strike force' -- a, quote, 'strike force' -- in Iraq. Somebody's going to have to -- I think it might be appropriate for him to describe exactly what that means.” In Cameron's report, McCain went on to say, “I'm intrigued to some degree at this concept of a strike force after his rhetoric up to now has been immediate withdrawal of all troops. I don't know how you reconcile those two statements.” In fact, as early as October 2007, Obama said he envisioned a U.S. military “strike force” either in the region or in Iraq for performing counter-terrorism operations.

According to an April 1 Philadelphia Inquirer article, Obama, “challenged to distinguish his Iraq policy from McCain's” at a news conference, responded: “What I've said is I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take advantage of, or we could deal with, potential problems that might take place in the region.”

But this was not the first time Obama had discussed his idea for a “strike force.” During an interview on the October 2, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley asked Obama why he had stated at an earlier presidential debate that he “couldn't commit to having U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013.” Obama replied: “What I've said is that I would retain a very limited number of troops to carry out functions that we carry out in other areas of the world that aren't war zones. Protecting our diplomatic and civilian corps, our embassy, and having a strike force which might be in Iraq or in the region, to target Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Similarly, an October 7, 2007, article (accessed via the Nexis database) in The Charlotte (NC) Observer reported:

Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq “tomorrow” if he could, leaving an American Embassy and a strike force, while increasing troops in Afghanistan by two brigades.

“I think we can do an orderly phased withdrawal of one to two brigades a month. At that pace, we would have our combat troops out in about 16 months, and what I would maintain is a very limited presence to protect our embassies, to protect our civilian personnel ... and to have a strike force to go after al-Qaida in Iraq or to engage in other counterterrorist activities.” (emphasis added)

Furthermore, while not using the phrase “strike force,” Obama has advocated having a unit with a mission similar to the one he outlined for a “strike force” on other occasions. In a January 15 MSNBC debate, Obama explained that he would “maintain some troop presence” in Iraq “to protect our embassy,” “to protect our civilians ... engaged in humanitarian activity” and to “allow[] us to strike if Al Qaeda is creating bases inside of Iraq.” And, in a September 12, 2007, speech, Obama said that, after a withdrawal from Iraq, the United States “will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If -- but only if -- Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.”

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, in January 2007, Obama introduced legislation that established a withdrawal timetable and outlined a list of four reasons any U.S. forces could be in Iraq after that timetable's completion, one of which was "[t]o conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations." That bill stated, in part:

SEC. 3. APPROPRIATE FORCE LEVELS FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQ.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the levels of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq after the date of the enactment of this Act shall not exceed the levels of such forces in Iraq as of January 10, 2007, without specific authority in statute enacted by Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment-

(1) DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF REDEPLOYMENT- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the phased redeployment of the Armed Forces of the United States from Iraq shall commence not later than May 1, 2007.

(2) SCOPE AND MANNER OF REDEPLOYMENT- The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group, if all the matters set forth in subsection (b)(1)(B) are not met by such date, subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes as contemplated by subsection (g).

(3) FORMULATION OF PLAN WITH MILITARY COMMANDERS- The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section should be conducted pursuant to a plan formulated by United States military commanders that is developed, if practicable, in consultation with the Government of Iraq.

(4) PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES FORCES AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL- In carrying out the redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section, the highest priority shall be afforded to the safety of members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the United States in Iraq.

[...]

(g) Retention of Certain Forces in Iraq-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the requirement for the redeployment of the Armed Forces under subsection (a) and subject to the provisions of this subsection, personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States may be in Iraq after the completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section for the following purposes:

(A) To protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.

(B) To conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations.

(C) To provide training for Iraqi security forces.

(D) To conduct the routine functions of the Office of Defense Attache.

(2) CERTIFICATION- Personnel of the Armed Forces may not be retained in Iraq under this subsection unless the President certifies to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that--

(A) the retention of the Armed Forces in Iraq is necessary for one or more of the purposes set forth in paragraph (1); and

(B) the utilization of Armed Forces positioned outside Iraq could not result in the effective achievement of such purpose or purposes.

(3) DISAPPROVAL OF RETENTION- If Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving the retention of personnel of the Armed Forces in Iraq under this subsection, or any renewal of the retention, the retention of such personnel in Iraq shall be discontinued, and such personnel shall be redeployed from Iraq.

(4) PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS-

(A) JOINT RESOLUTION DEFINED- For purposes of paragraph (3), the term `joint resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced not later than 10 days after the date on which a certification of the President under paragraph (2) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: `That Congress disapproves the certification of the President submitted to Congress under section 4(g)(2) of the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, on XXXXXXX.', the blank space being filled in with the appropriate date.

(B) PROCEDURES- A joint resolution described in subparagraph (A) shall be considered in a House of Congress in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as enacted by section 101(h) of Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936).

From the October 2, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

CROWLEY: I want to also ask about something you said recently, which was that you couldn't commit to having U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, which would be the end of your first term. What does that say to all of the people who thought last year, they voted to get out of Iraq?

OBAMA: What I've said is is that I would retain a very limited number of troops to carry out functions that we carry out in other areas of the world that aren't war zones. Protecting our diplomatic and civilian corps, our embassy, and having a strike force which might be in Iraq or in the region, to target Al Qaeda in Iraq.

CROWLEY: Isn't that war?

OBAMA: Well, but -- the point is that we are going to have the need to engage in potential military actions in the region. Against targets in the region. They -- that is very different from having a set of troops in the midst of a civil war.

CROWLEY: How many troops you would leave on the ground in the -- in that -- how many will be there?

OBAMA: That will depend on the situation at the time. And that is the thing that I cannot guarantee.

From the April 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: You also have Democrats going around, Barack Obama specifically, continuing to talk about the fact that you want to keep us at war in Iraq for 100 years. Now, you've explained this time and time again, but they keep bringing it up.

McCAIN: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: Do you think you're going to be hearing this through November?

McCAIN: I don't know, but it's been condemned by every objective media observer, these people who look at these things. And clearly Senator Obama is being disingenuous because he knows better. Anybody who looks at the entire clip of the exchange I had with the gentleman at the town hall meeting in New Hampshire, clearly I said right after that, just as we've been in South Korea, Germany, Japan, et cetera. That's a presence after we win the war. But I don't think the American people will buy it.

But, you know, Senator Obama, in the last few days, said he wanted a, quote, “strike force,” a strike force in Iraq. I really would be interested, Joe, in hearing what exactly what that means, after he has continuously said he would withdraw immediately or yesterday or whatever it is. But the point is, the American people know that I have said that I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war and that there would be ups and downs. But look, if -- I don't think the American people buy it, and so we're gonna -- I think they'll understand exactly what's at stake.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, senator, when he's talking about a strike force, that kind of reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld. I mean, maybe Rumsfeld's his --

McCAIN: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: -- secret military adviser, because it was Rummy who said, “We can win this war on the cheap, we're going to go light; we're going to go fast.” A strike force? That's Rumsfeldian thinking.

McCAIN: I -- that -- but see, he has just said, we're going to have a strike force, so we really don't know. I think somebody ought to ask what in the world he's talking about, especially since he has no experience or background at all in national security affairs. But the point is that we need to have a respectful campaign.

From the April 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

CAMERON: In an interview with Fox News, John McCain blasted Barack Obama as unprepared to be commander in chief.

McCAIN [video clip]: -- 'Cause he has no background and no experience, and really very little knowledge of these issues that are transcendent, which is America's national security.

CAMERON: This was Obama in Pennsylvania today.

OBAMA [video clip]: Senator McCain has been saying I don't understand national security. But he's the one who wants to keep tens of thousands of United States troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years, even though this war has not made us safer.

CAMERON: But McCain fired back, noting that Obama envisions U.S. security forces for post-war Iraq, too.

McCAIN [video clip]: He has now said that he would keep a, quote, “strike force” -- a, quote, “strike force” -- in Iraq. Somebody's going to have to -- I think it might be appropriate for him to describe exactly what that means. Now I'm intrigued to some degree at this concept of a strike force after his rhetoric up to now has been immediate withdrawal of all troops. I don't know how you reconcile those two statements.

CAMERON: On the economic front, both Democrats are attacking McCain.