As I've said throughout Iraq...
If the cut down is relatively close to what Military Commanders on the ground are saying is needed to successfully maintain stability while we draw down then I have no problem with it. If the military commanders say we need 20k and they go with 18k to try to save some money, I'm fine with that.
If the cut down is significantly different than what the military commanders on the ground are saying is needed then I have a significant issue with it. If they're wanting 20k and you give them half that, or 1/6th of that, then to me that's problematic. This becomes doubly so with regards to if its being done for political purposes and expediency which, going THAT far away from what the genreals on the ground are asking for would make it appear to be.
Regardless of whether or not you agreed with Iraq in the first place, the fact of the matter we ARE there now. It doesn't change the fact we've invested a large amount of money into the country. A democratic Iraq IS a benefit to the United States in terms of strategic ability. Is it a benefit worth the money we've put into it? That's debatable. But it's not debatable that such a situation IS a benefit. I want to see us drawing down and leaving the country, but I want it done in such a way that we don't completely and utterly waste everything we've already invested in it simply to help out an individuals political goals.
I am not going to lambast Obama on this until the final numbers comes out. Going after him for something a source says he may do is ridiculous. If he does end up making the move that looks purely and utterly political however then he'll get the scorn he deserves. If he listens to his generals and takes a measure approach then I'll approve