Umm, how's that again?

From Reuters, yesterday:

President-elect Barack Obama said on Monday he believed U.S. combat troops should leave Iraq within 16 months of his taking office but he would listen to advice from military commanders.

"I believe that 16 months is the right timeframe but, as I've said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders," Obama said after unveiling his nominees for top national security posts.

Obama said a new security pact between Iraq and the United States already put the United States on a "glide path" to pulling out of Iraq. He also noted that a "residual" U.S. force may need to remain in Iraq longer than combat troops.

As I've pointed out before, Obama has always referred to getting "combat" troops, not "all" troops, out in 16 months. Sixteen months is about 12 months too long and that "residual" force could run to the tens of thousands and be in Iraq for years on end - perhaps at some of those non-existent permanent bases - but at least this is what he has been saying all along.

But as for the rest - is it just me, or does that sound like some fudging is going on? Last July he said flatly that

[w]e can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.

Now, 16 months is just the "timeframe."

Then, he said he would

consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely....

Now, the consultation with the military apparently involves "recommendations" about the "timeframe."

"Besides, what's the big deal? We're already on a 'glide path' to withdrawal. So what if it takes, y'know, kinda longer than I said? Like maybe until the end of 2011? What's the diff?"

Like most politicians, Barack Obama is expert at giving himself wiggle room. It's instinctive. So someone tell me: Is that all he's doing here, following instinct? Or am I right to be apprehensive that 16 months may turn into the minimum time combat troops will remain in Iraq rather than the maximum?