Despite Obama’s Vow COMBAT BRIGADES WILL STAY IN IRAQ- Under New "Non-Combat" Label

[Orwellian_Ghost]

POLITICS: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Mar 25 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama’s statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months,"

a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.

A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."



http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46264

[biopowertoday]

1. fooled yah.

The WH plays the game well!!


damm

[noamnety]

2. no surprise here

He has said all along that we will stay there and our mission will become ... what was it, ensuring security, advising, dealing with counterterrorism ... something like that - all the things that already are our current mission, supposedly.

It's a bit like how Vietnam wasn't "a war" - it was "a conflict."

[TheWraith]

3. You love to just keep posting this same shit, don't you? nt

[anaxarchos]

4. Really?

Do you mean that the OP has previously posted about the Administration changing the labels that it puts on military units in order to overturn campaign promises and continue the War in Iraq? Perhaps you could deposit a link... here...

Or do you mean that the OP continuously posts material which is critical of the administration? But the OP mostly reproduces material from the mainstream press? Do you dispute it?

Or is it that you simply don't like "critical material"? That is what makes it the "same shit"? It does not fit into your "world view"? It upsets you?

Wow... that's too bad.

[newtothegame]

15. Thank you for posting this before me...

Guy sounds like just another DU'er more bent on desperately searching for trolls than using the site for actual discussion.

[Renew Deal]

8. Someone else posted this yesterday.

Besides, OG posts a lot of interesting stuff.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. This was all predicted long ago

Read this thread from the archives:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4842168

Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that his Iraq plan boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.

It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.

Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary -- likely to be necessary -- to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, the Times:

"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."

<snip>

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19879

Why is this information not of note? Many of us read the fine print but the understanding for those who did not was that the illegal occupation of Iraq would be ended with the new administration. Now it was up to Obama and Co. to make it clear what they meant with their various oblique references to Iraq. Not everyone can or will take the time to read all the ingredients on the package.

[leftchick]

24. what is the matter?

You can't handle the truth? I have not seen one discredited post by Orwellian. They are simply facts you happen to not like to see.

[flyarm]

25. FINE TheWraith ..DESPUTE IT!! COME ON , YOU ARE NOT SHY..DESPUTE IT..

but i bet you can't can you?????

thanks to the OP..i live by truth ..not propaganda dished out by the shills.

[PVnRT]

5. Well, that's a relief

I mean, if we remove "combat" from their name, that's perfectly fine. :sarcasm:

[NeedleCast]

6. I don't see any change from what Obama said

Troops would be drawn down to 50,000(ish) by 2010, with almost all troops being out by December, 2011, with a back-loaded schedule. Does this article diverge from that plan?

[Renew Deal]

7. This is what Obama said he was going to do.

Like I said yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5328479&mesg_id=5328649

[Holly_Hobby]

9. I remember a campaign speech....

He would bring the troops home from Iraq "on day one".

Bait and switch.

I did not vote for a troop name change.

[NeedleCast]

10. I think you misunderstood or misheard what he said

I never heard Obama say he would bring the troops home on day one. All the speeches I heard - and I heard a lot - indicated that he would set a timetable for withdrawl as soon as possible, which is exactly what he did.

[Holly_Hobby]

12. I have the video, will take me a while to find it

I'll post it when I locate it. He said from day one.

[Holly_Hobby]

34. Here ya go:

"The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war."

Both video and transcript at link.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

(I have another video where he says, "...on day one.", but I don't have time to look for that one at the moment)

And this:

"1 Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq:

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

How many brigades have been brought home from Iraq since 1/21/09? I voted to end the war by voting for Obama. I didn't vote for a name change.

[Renew Deal]

11. Linky?

Your memory isn't too good. It doesn't sound like you know what you voted for.

[Holly_Hobby]

13. I have the video, it will take me a while to find it

It's on the other computer, which isn't well organized. I promise I'll post the link when I find it. :)

[anaxarchos]

14. What difference does it make...

The fine print is there or it isn't there. Perhaps someone can find some fine print from AIG: "The company is not responsible if its policies cause a worldwide economic meltdown displacing tens of millions." They really said that... why, then its OK.

If the Obama campaign promise was really: "I will leave significant combat forces in Iraq, for the foreseeable future defined open-endedly, but I will call them 'support troops' and a 'residual force'"... well, then, lots of people "misunderstood". The primaries or the election might even have gone differently. Or maybe they wouldn't have. Again, what difference does it make?

Your argument only reinforces the the implication that Obama says one thing but implies another... as does this article. That's a good thing?

[unc70]

27. That was exactly what Obama did in the NH debate

That was the debate where Edwards challenged Clinton on doing the same thing. I have a long post on my journal from those discussions (linking back to the main threads)). Obama has always been adept at taking firm, well-reasoned positions on all sides of an issue.

Obama has always taken centrist, DLC-like, establishment positions favorable to businesses and to Israel, with a strong liberal component on social issues. You only need to realize who his mentors have been since college and how the myth of his family story, the faux connections to JFK, the media manipulation supported by clever marketing and the use of some sharp elbows.

Obama is not evil like Bush/Cheney, put he is a politician and needs to be watched closely. We all need him to be good at the job.

[Holly_Hobby]

35. Here ya go:

See reply #34

My memory is just fine.

[Maru Kitteh]

39. Did you have corncobs in your ears that day?

He absolutely NEVER said he would bring the troops home on day one. Since you made the assertion - prove it. A simple look at his campaign website on the internet wayback machine will give you his campaign position.

The man is doing exactly what he said he would do.

[TBF]

18. Just because he said he was going to do something, it doesn't make it right. nt

[LWolf]

33. Which is one of the many reasons

I have never supported him.

[smiley_glad_hands]

16. What do we call the troops in South Korea?

Dont believe Obama ever said that we would pull out and leave a power vacuum.

[JoseGaspar]

21. Congratulations

You have just resurrected McCain's entire position from the presidential campaign, right down to the South Korea and "power vacuum" references. The only thing you missed was the "We will stay in Iraq for 100 years" bit.

[smiley_glad_hands]

26. You seriously didn't think that we were just going to up and leave one day? eom

[ShortnFiery]

17. That proves it to me: The PENTAGON'S top brass NOT The President controls our MILITARY and

Defense Spending Allotments ($ 515 Billion NOT to include our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan - that's EXTRA). :grr:

[TBF]

20. Don't forget our $80B (approx to date) for Israel.

cite: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

[bvar22]

22. Same bag of shit.....different label.

It was decided long before the Primaries that the Democratic Nominee would be Pro-WAR and Anti-LABOR.



It makes no difference whether this was in the fine print of Obama's campaign, I still OPPOSE it.
I despise our One Party/Lesser of Two Evils system.

[Individualist]

23. ...make that labels

The war on terror is now "Overseas Contingency Operation".

How harmless these things seem when translated into newspeak.

[geek tragedy]

40. Naderite stupidity.

Typical of the type who hang out in threads like this.

[jody]

28. "When the final history is written on Iraq, it'll look like just a comma."

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. anybody here familar with Viet Nam "advisors"?

The minute Obama used the term "combat brigades" it was clear to some of us what he meant.

It is sorta along the lines of a Republican suddenly calling themselves an Independent.

same shit, different color.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

41. Yep

Also reminded me of US operations in Central America throughout the 80's.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

30. So it's going to be like the US version of Operation Banner, basically

Nice.

[LostinVA]

31. The US's own Operation Banner

[Zhade]

32. This is not what I voted for.

NT!

[shadowknows69]

36. Newspeak

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[rug]

37. Why doesn't he just call them valets?

[Prometheus Bound]

38. So the "assistance" brigades are the same as the "combat" brigades except that they are bigger.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs (Brigade Combat Teams), except for the addition of a few dozen officers.

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. That is a powerful graphic....where is it from???

[Orwellian_Ghost]

43. I can't recall

I'll try to find that out for you later.

Victims who won’t be counted in any tally…

When serving in Iraq, Tyler Curtis survived bullets and bombs. But once he got home, he couldn’t escape the emotional wounds he suffered. Curtis, 25, took his own life on Thanksgiving morning, three months after returning to Maine following his 2006 discharge from the Army.

— Soldier’s Death Blamed On Post-Traumatic Stress, The Boston Channel, 3 December 2007.