No, The Combat Troops Are Not All Leaving Iraq

[maryf]

As always I suggest reading the whole article, and as always I post to try to put a light on some truth...

"No, The Combat Troops Are Not All Leaving Iraq
By: Casual Observer Monday August 2, 2010 5:30 pm


Obama: Combat Effort in Iraq Ending on Schedule

President Says War is Nearing its Endpoint, Though Non-Combat Troops to Remain Through End of Next Year

…

…U.S. combat troops, he said, will be out of the country by the end of August, leaving about 50,000 "non-combat" troops who will leave by the end of 2011. The small, minor glitch with the CBS story above—and many more like it published today—is that Obama did not say that all the combat troops were leaving this month. He certainly didn’t say this today in Atlanta, and to my knowledge he has never said it.

The reason Obama avoided saying this today likely stems from the fact that the units deployed in Iraq after August 31st 2010 will all be fully functional combat units. The only difference is that we will now call them by a different name, in which the word “combat” no longer appears. They are now termed "advise and assist brigades" by the administration, and the press dutifully reported this new term in their stories.

<snip>

I’m going to be just a bit repetitive and say this as clearly as possible—just in case any journalist comes slumming through FDL and actually reads this. Here goes:

Each of these units will be in Iraq after 8/31/10, and each will be as fully combat-capable as any brigade combat team or armored cavalry regiment currently in Iraq. They have all the guns, bombs, rockets, tanks and artillery required to pound the living crap out of anything or anybody they choose.

<snip>

It’s hard to conceive how the DOD could make this story any plainer for our American press.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/63159

[Better Believe It]

1. You mean they won't only be equipped with paint ball guns?

:)

Of course they are combat ready troops. And they will engage in military combat whenever they are ordered to.

[maryf]

16. sigh...

if only paint ball guns were the only weapons, if only the truth was the only language...

[derby378]

2. Not to mention all those combat mercs deployed by the State Dept.

One step forward, two steps back...

[ThomWV]

3. If they are not Combat Troops then they must be an Occupation Force.

[maryf]

9. bingo! nt

[Oregone]

4. These "non-combat" troops will just be firing "non-guns" in a "non-war"

:toast:

"Peace" is here at last!

[maryf]

23. for non-oil...

no less...

[jody]

5. Where's there Hope, there's Hype! n/t

[maryf]

13. And change is status quo nt

[jody]

15. And the only jobs left were in the U.S. Foreign Legion,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x19609

defending the worldwide assets of those who had taken the people's jobs and stolen the people's government.

The people shouted, "We the people are dead, long live the corporation."

And the high priests of Mammon laughed about how easy it was to destroy the world's longest running, most successful experiment in democracy.

And the thirsty and hungry and sick and imprisoned and naked prayed to Mammon to have mercy on their wretched. miserable bodies because the people had lost the very soul of democracy,

[maryf]

25. Poverty draft...

and the people had very few places left to apply for jobs...
a person told me they entered the military to have health care coverage for their kid...
another to feed their kids...
another to have a bed...

the numbers signing up to "serve their country" are getting smaller in proportion to those signing up to survive...ironic, sick...

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. Wonder how loyal they will be to government and military interventionist policies?

Seems to me if you are joining up only for food, a bed, medical care, AFTER the TPTB have taken everything else away,
you might be a tad resentful of said powers. And armed.

[maryf]

40. hmm...

that's something to ponder for sure...

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Reminds me of the pukes a couple decades ago 'reducing' taxes by calling everything a 'fee'

Only this is worse.

[TBF]

8. Yes, Obama's camp is great at the marketing -

sorta like Bill Gates. But so far I haven't seen an original thought from the bunch ...

[maryf]

11. Doublespeak reigns nt

[maxsolomon]

7. If you don't conduct Combat Operations

then the troops are not in combat. it's a word game, but this is politically realistic. BHO must conduct this withdrawal in a manner that will keep him realtively invulnerable to accusations of 'quitting', and allow him to be re-elected.

or would you rather have Mike Huckabee as CIC?

[TBF]

10. Right, because those are the only two choices - we put up with reactionary

policies from Obama or we put up with them from (insert Repub name here)...

Not only do we not have to vote for either of those choices, we can also choose to protest in other fashions. There is political life beyond voting. *GASP*

[maxsolomon]

18. we simply aren't going to precipitously withdraw from Iraq

the plan Obama ran on is in motion. it's not changing. i accept this reality. you don't.

US foreign policy is a giant, evil, corporate-toadying ship that can't be turned quickly. but it is turning as fast as possible.

the blood of iraqis and our soldiers is still on president cheney's ghoulish hands.

[TBF]

22. "Reality" is that we are still spending more than every other country in the world COMBINED

on defense. Under a democratic president.

You may be perfectly comfortable with that "giant, evil, corporate-toadying ship" but I am not. It may not be "sensible" and it may even be "fuckin'retarded", but that's how I feel about it.

[frylock]

27. it's past time to start pushing helicoptors off of the giant, evil, corporate-toadying ship..

[jakeXT]

64. jump

http://sofap.net/vietnam.aspx

[maryf]

85. Thanks!!

:) just love that second pic!

[Dhalgren]

37. I think the "bloody hands" thing is now shared by the current

President, as well. You can try and justify Democrats behaving as Republicans all you want, but it won't bring any of those Iraqi citizens or Afghan citizens back from the dead; it won't bring back any of the US funded troops back from the dead. Justifying the continuation of this illegal war and occupation is only justifying an illegal war and occupation - the "why" of it is completely immaterial. As you know, Bush and his buds justified it all, too...

[Better Believe It]

12. If Mike Huckabee were CIC do you think more Democrats would be calling for withdrawl from Iraq?

And if you think so, why?

[maryf]

14. more than likely...

The anti-war movement took a nose dive after Jan. 2009...

[maxsolomon]

19. if Huckabee is president in 2013 and REVERSES course in Iraq

i think it will be everyone screaming bloody murder.

[maryf]

21. we should be screaming bloody murder now!

without Huckabee...

[frylock]

29. there might even be *gasp* anti-war rallies!

boy, i sure do miss those anti-war rallies.

[JonLP24]

17. See I don't see things like that

is imperative to winning elections. I'm more concerned about the deaths, the mental illness, the divorces, etc. that result in oversea tours. Getting them back ASAP is more important IMO than being politically vulnerable. Plus if you believe polls most Americans want them out of there ASAP.

As far as Mike Huckabee, I don't think he'll even survive a primary due to the fact he released the Lakewood cop killer back in Alabama.

[maryf]

20. "Getting them back ASAP

is more important IMO than being politically vulnerable." of course, as is stopping all such occupations regardless the moniker. :)

[TBF]

24. Well you were at +5, and currently it's +2, so I guess the "sensible" democrats are here now.

:banghead: :banghead:

[maryf]

26. so nice to feel loved!

so good to know how many don't want to look at the truth...:shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. K&R

...required to pound the living crap out of anything or anybody they choose.



How nice. :puke:


Proud to be American :patriot: :puke:

[maryf]

35. be proud of not being hoodwinked! nt

[leftstreet]

30. K&R

Thanks for posting this...a very good read

[maryf]

34. takes a discerning mind to recognize

a good read, thank you.

[glitch]

32. Jeremy Scahill was very scathing on the semantics this morning on Democracy Now.

http://www.democracynow.org/

[maryf]

33. Thanks!

Scahill is a very savvy man, good link...

[maryf]

56. More Scahill from when the orginal plan was being dismantled...

http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=53791&s2=29

The Picture of Dorian Gray
Obama's Iraq
By JEREMY SCAHILL

April 28, 2009

Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all US combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their "good war" in Afghanistan.

Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama’s Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush’s table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term "Global War on Terror" while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that’s why leading Republicans praised Obama’s plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SoFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…

In the latest episode of the "Occupation Rebranded" mini-series, President Obama is preparing to scrap the June 30 withdrawal timeline.

As The New York Times reports: "The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops."

on edit, of course there's more at the link...how many ways are there to bait and switch?

[Starry Messenger]

36. k & r

Parsing semantics has been one of the worst hallmarks of this Administration.

[Dhalgren]

38. I second Commander Starry! K&R!

:hi:

[maryf]

39. wise decision!

:hi:

[maryf]

41. A friend just sent me this illuminating article

Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011.
Obama declared in a speech to disabled U.S. veterans in Atlanta that "America's combat mission in Iraq" would end by the end of August, to be replaced by a mission of "supporting and training Iraqi security forces".

That statement was in line with the pledge he had made on Feb. 27, 2009, when he said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. "In the sentence preceding that pledge, however, he had said, "I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months." Obama said nothing in his speech Monday about withdrawing "combat brigades" or "combat troops" from Iraq until the end of 2011.

Even the concept of "ending the U.S. combat mission" may be highly misleading, much like the concept of "withdrawing U.S. combat brigades" was in 2009. Under the administration's definition of the concept, combat operations will continue after August 2010, but will be defined as the secondary role of U.S. forces in Iraq. The primary role will be to "advise and assist" Iraqi forces.
An official who spoke with IPS on condition that his statements would be attributed to a "senior administration official" acknowledged that the 50,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq beyond the deadline will have the same combat capabilities as the combat brigades that have been withdrawn. The official also acknowledged that the troops will engage in some combat but suggested that the combat would be "mostly" for defensive purposes. That language implied that there might be circumstances in which U.S. forces would carry out offensive operations as well.

<snip>

In November 2008, after Obama's election, Gen. Odierno was asked by Washington Post correspondent Tom Ricks "what the U.S. military presence would look like around 2014 or 2015". Odierno said he "would like to see a ...force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000", which would still be carrying out combat operations. Last February, Odierno requested that a combat brigade be stationed in Kirkuk to avoid an outbreak of war involving Kurdish and Iraqi forces vying for the region's oil resources - and that it be openly labeled as such - according to Ricks. In light of the fact that Obama had already agreed to Odierno's "remissioning" dodge, the only reason for such a request would be to lay the groundwork for keeping a brigade there beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline.

Please read the entire article here:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52366

Special thanks to Cassandra OG

[joe black]

42. We are fucked.

[Dhalgren]

50. mary, that is a killer article. It is an indictment.

What's that line from "Won't Get Fooled Again!"? Oh forget it...

[maryf]

51. Here's another "killer" article from 4/09, the horse's mouth

Quotes around killer for the irony...

1. OBAMA ON IRAQ BEFORE THE ELECTION


"What I do oppose is a dumb war."
Barack Obama 2002

...

"Most of you know that I have opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. .. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008 ... letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever ... "
Barack Obama, 2007.

from this link:
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2009/04/obamas-iraq-no-change.html

I'll be posting more from this one...

[maryf]

53. More for you!

2. OBAMA’S AGENDA IN IRAQ


Asked in Turkey how he was different from President Bush, Mr. Obama said: "Here in the US is like piloting a big tanker. They're not like people ... You can't just whip them around and go in a new direction. Instead, you've gotta slowly move it and then eventually you end up in a very different place. "

Very difficult for President Obama, when – for political survival - he has chosen to listen to those with the mindset from the military - industrial complex/PNAC/AIPAC. The key word that now gives a clue to the reality of Obama’s formerly hopeful policies is “BUT,” following his “change” rhetoric.

Q.: Can one surmise that the military / CIA/corporate interests will ensure and maintain the ‘al Qaeda’ violence level in Iraq in order to keep troops there indefinitely? Listening to General Odierno, it sounds as if this is already happening. President Obama already has his very own Quagmires: Iraq, NATO, Afghanistan plus now Pakistan, and Israel. Very big ships to move.

When the Obama team hears criticisms, it will use the Common Purpose Project , a weekly meeting PR group who want to “enforce a kind of message discipline.” But no Obama “Change in tone” will change the impression that the President is Bush's second hand car dealer. Even the NY Times noted that “President Obama’s foreign policy has much in common with that of his predecessor.”

America needs to wake up from its delusion of hope.

[maryf]

54. Still more: The Troops aren't coming home...March/09

http://www.examiner.com/x-6451-US-Military-Examiner~y2009m3d30-The-Troops-Arent-Coming-Home

Not much change happening, the agenda was followed...

[Amonester]

43. I would be ready to bet ALL U.S. Empire troops are combat ready

troops:


And to think the only way they will ALL be brought back home would be either after a countrywide hunger strike for weeks or a total collapse of the treasury in the form of a terminal bankrupcy...

[maryf]

44. a general strike would be nice

a few days of that and the banks would be screaming...look at Greece lately...

[anaxarchos]

45. For the record...

The following six Brigades are to remain in Iraq:

• 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division
• 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division
• 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
• 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division
• 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division
• 4th Brigade, 1st Armored Div

The only change will be to re-label them as “advise and assist” units.

Ordinarily, these units would represent significantly more than 50,000 troops when combined with their support units. The difference will be made up, in part, by the 113,000 "contractors", the majority of whom will remain in Iraq (and may even grow in number).

[maryf]

52. Thanks so much!

so many don't read the articles, and this is a critical part of this one. :hi:

[Biker13]

46. K&R

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

48. K&R

:kick:

[blindpig]

49. Yet some people prefer speechifying ...

over their lying eyes.

1984 was not an instruction manual.

[maryf]

55. Doublespeak

reading through speeches couldn't find one that wasn't rife with it, just one example:

"And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

From Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune 2/27/09

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. What they are called is meanlingless --

What those troops engage in is all that matters -- and the remaining 50k troops will be engaging in exactly the same military actions and missions they have been doing for the past 8 fucking years.

All those here who refuse to see that have a very damgerous set of blinders on.

[maryf]

58. Yep see this here:

reply #56, all about renaming being bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8873106#8877989

[Hell Hath No Fury]

59. It floors me to see --

such willful ignorance on display here from so many DUers. :wow: Thsi used to be the place where Truth was King. Now, not so much, especially if that Truth casts a cloud on anyone with a "D" afetr their name. :(

[maryf]

62. The Truth will out!

Just keep speaking it! solidarity!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

60. Delete

Computer fart.

[maryf]

61. Jeremy Scahill was so prescient here 12/08:

Published on Friday, December 5, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation

by Jeremy Scahill

The New York Times is reporting about an "apparent evolution" in president-elect Barack Obama's thinking on Iraq, citing his recent statements about his plan to keep a "residual force" in the country and his pledge to "listen to the recommendations of my commanders" as Obama prepares to assume actual command of US forces. "At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps' letting out its collective breath," the Times reported. "the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels."

The reality is there is no "evolution."

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 the now-president-elect had a plan that 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.

<snip>

"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>

Compare all of the above with a statement Obama made in July: "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." Some may now accuse Obama of flip-flopping. The reality is that we need to understand what the words "end" "war" "residual" and "decisively" mean when we hear Obama say them.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/05-1

Again, please read it all, (and maybe weep...)

[EFerrari]

63. I remember that. n/t

[maryf]

65. I did too, after a friend sent it to me...

Scahill is scathing as someone else posted...

[blindpig]

66. kick

[maryf]

93. kick back, nt

[TheKentuckian]

67. Of course not and the mercenaries are an unconstitutional abomination

Only Congress can raise an army and must have oversight over the military.

Plus, swapping mercs in for troops is just going to grow astronomically more expensive. Those kats aren't over there for no GI money.

This deal is totally scamtastic.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

68. Once before I die....

I want someone to post on this website who actually knows jack shit about the subject matter.

For all the breathless "THERE WILL STILL BE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ" posting going on here and "THEY'RE NOT JUST THERE TO TRAIN" hysteria, let me ask one simple question:

If we're there to train the Iraqi military in how to conduct combat operations, what kind of troops do you THINK would be there? They're not going to leave the fucking U.S. Marine Band in Iraq to teach the Iraqi Army how to conduct special ops.

Here's a bonus question: Do you think that, since we are leaving behind significant intelligence, engineering and construction personnel, we'd leave them there unguarded? These troops are going to be behind a pretty secure perimeter, and every time they venture out, they're going to do so in force for their own protection.

And as I've pointed on more than one occassion, there are about 35,000 U.S. combat troops, including the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force stationed in Japan.

Calm down.

[maryf]

69. Oh and that makes me feel so secure...

We aren't only talking about how many troops will be left in Iraq, we're talking about the spin the American people are always being given, the excuses for the troops all over the world. And why the fuck are there 35,000 troops in Japan?? It ain't because the Japanese are a threat is it? Maybe you should post an OP as to the total number of bases there are in the world? How many troops? Maybe the people need to know that? Can you tell me about the training troops in Costa Rica for instance?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

70. I think Google can do that as well as I can....

Thanks for the non sequiturs, though.

[maryf]

72. No non-sequiters

It's all related...as you know Googling is time consuming; I almost wrote on edit that my request was sincere as it was. If you have the number of bases and troops at the ready, it would be good to know. I'll google however.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. Here's the thing....

One certain could argue that since we spend more on our military that pretty much the rest of the world COMBINED, we're spending way too much. There is a legitimate argument that we really don't need 35,000 troops (combat or otherwise) in Japan, especially since there are an additional 28,000 more troops in South Korea. And I don't think either of those numbers includes allthe elements of the 7th Fleet and god-only-knows how many attack submarines in the Sea of Japan.

Do we need 10,000 troops in Italy? Nah.

50,000+ Troops in Germany? They've been pretty docile for the last 60 years. I think we can let that one go.

Even those in South Korea, where there is a legitimate threat, should be re-examined. To my knowledge, we are the only western nation with troops on the ground in South Korea. Where are the British? Where are the Japanese? Why does the United States have to bear the burden of being the world's peacekeeper all by itself?

All that being said, leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq under the current conditions is not cause for accusations that Obama is reneging on a campaign promsie (he's not - this is exactly what he said he'd do) or that there some secret plot to continue the combat mission. Here's a hint: If soldiers keep dying in Iraq, I'm pretty sure their families are going to notice.

[maryf]

77. Of course that's what he said after he was elected...

And even hinted at prior to that...it's the bait and switch, it's the nuances and the pulling the wool over the people's heads we are talking about. This plan is very much the same as the prior admin's plans.

Regarding the amount of money spent by the military, it's over 50% of the entire federal budget, 28% of the federal budget is expended for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan alone...

[anaxarchos]

71. Military training in Iraq has been mainly the responsibility of...

Military Transition Teams (MiTT). They are typically teams of 10 to 20 U.S. military assigned to Iraqi Army units, the Iraqi Federal Police (FP), the Territorial Police (IPS), regular Police, and Ministry of Interior units. MiTTs totaled just above 5000 personnel at the beginning of 2007.

While those units will pass under the control of the six combat brigades, the combat brigades will essentially be there as an occupation force... just as today.

The change of designation was a political decision. As late as last year, the Army was still scrambling to come up with the composition of the re-labeled brigades, with a general admission that the combat units would change very little:

http://washingtonindependent.com/32094/key-iraq-training-units-still-being-developed

[maryf]

73. "appropriate supporting forces"

advisory assistance brigades,aab, unit rotating force, urf; brigade combat teams, MiTT, FP...

between the euphemisms, acronyms, and so clever adolescent pseudonyms for horrendous actions (collateral damage takes the cake still), I wonder how many in the military are engaged in writing these terms. Are there tests on this shit? Part and parcel of keeping the troops obfuscated as they quake? Pretty Orwellian anyway, his ghost being in the works here as it is.

this was a bit of a tangent...but not really a non sequiter as it is bringing us full circle to one of the main points of the article...

From the OP "The public might wrongly perceive from a false-fact like "all combat troops gone" that the light they’re seeing at the end of this horrific tunnel is fairly strong, when maybe it’s not that strong and it’s pretty far away."

Thanks so much for your "appropriate support" and "advisory assistance"! :;):

Very useful article, and source, to have. Bookmarked.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

76. That was in one city....

Last year, Nagl singled out the concept of a Transition Task Force for moving from combat operations to advisory operations that the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division pioneered in the Sunni Iraqi city of Mahmoudiya. The task force was much smaller than the Brigade Combat Team — a battalion of 800 soldiers rather than the Brigade Combat Team’s 5,000 — and it advised not only the Iraqi and police, but also the local government. The concept was “a bold but calculated effort to mitigate the risk of a U.S. drawdown of forces,” wrote Nagl and Capt. Adam Scher, a member of the 3rd Brigade Combat team, in the Christian Science Monitor.

Multiply this activity x The Entire Country and add the logistical and support personnel and you've got 50,000 troops.

[anaxarchos]

86. Incorrect...

"As of December 2006, more than 5000 U.S. military personnel were assigned to transition teams in Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Transition_Teams

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

88. So the question is....

Did you not read the entire article that talked about up to 20,000 trainers in Iraq?

Or did you just omit that part because it contradicted your point? Because in addition to the trainers, there would be any number of intelligence analysts, engineering and construction personnnel, and support staff.

In short, given the mission, 50,000 would be in the ballpark as to what's necessary.

[anaxarchos]

89. My dear Jeff...

It is my own link that you are trying to quote back to me. You are misunderstanding the two uses of "trainers": the actual and the political usage. You are also missing almost the entire meaning of my link and largely making up this new argument of yours.

You asked for someone who actually knows something about the facts of this issue, so I responded...

If you had asked for someone who agreed with whatever it was that you were predisposed to believe, I wouldn't have bothered.

It does not take 50,000 trainers to train the "Iraqi Security Forces"... more like one tenth that. The residual forces left in Iraq are an occupation force, designed to prop up the Iraqi regime. They may remain past 2011.

There are literally 100s of articles published worldwide over the last 18 months which will tell you that. It is an open secret discussed truthfully even in military publications.

[maryf]

94. +50,000

thanks.

[Dhalgren]

75. Excuses for a continuation of the occupation is what the Bush

team practiced regularly. Now the Obama team is doing the same thing. Why is it so hard for supporters of colonialism to just admit that that is what they are doing? When this administration comes up with excuses for continuing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and for expanding the occupations of Colombia or the Horn of Africa, or Costa Rica (for god's sake!), that is all they are doing - making excuses. And the loyal Party members fall into line and repeat the excuses as though they were real. And it deserves repeating, these are not Republicans this time around...

[maryf]

78. these are not Republicans this time around

and the only difference this time around is who is doing the supporting of the status quo...:hi:

[moksha]

79. Except that US troops will still be participating in combat.

We don't participate in combat in Japan, as far as I know.

[maryf]

80. true point, nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. They're staying to improve their tans and carry guns as a fashion statement. K&

[Dhalgren]

82. It's the 'go-to' vacation spot for militaries everywhere!

:bounce:

[Dhalgren]

83. Oh, and kick, just in case...

:hi:

[maryf]

84. thanks!

give the people the opportunity to catch what they've missed! :fistbump:

[anaxarchos]

87. The funny thing is that everybody knows this... and has known it...

... for over a year... except perhaps the sensible people on DU.

Most world press organizations were writing about it (in almost exact detail) in February and March of 2009. Google China Times or the Russkis or the French or the Middle Eastern Press Bureaus and they had the story exactly right.

Here is IPS from February 27, 2009:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45923

Obama declared, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina that by Aug. 31, 2010, "ur combat mission in Iraq will end". But he confirmed earlier indications from administration officials that the residual force would be from 35,000 to 50,000 troops - far higher than Democratic congressional leaders had previously been led to expect by Obama.

Obama did not refer to the possibility that combat brigades would remain in the country after Aug. 31, 2010, but Defence Secretary Robert Gates admitted as much in a question and answer session with reporters after the speech.

Obama also stated, "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." But Gates, and the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, have both indicated on the record that they wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq even after that date, based on the assumption that the Iraqi government will .

NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported just before Obama's speech that discussions had taken place in the Kirkuk area between some U.S. military commanders and Iraqis "to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, U.S. air base, in Kirkuk."

Obama's claim that the U.S. combat mission will end in August 2010 raises the question whether he will call a halt to combat patrols by U.S. personnel embedded with Iraqi units. The sweeping concession made to CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq commander Gen. Odierno on the residual force suggests that he will not demand the end of such operations by U.S. troops.

The significance of renegotiating "the Status of Forces agreement" and a "permanent" base in Kirkuk are that they represent very significant back-pedaling from even the Bush Plan.

Some people have an astonishing ability to substitute their loyalties and their "hopes" for their "lying eyes".

[maryf]

91. yep...

Some people hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see because they are so afraid of losing something like security? I like to know when I'm being fucked with...Just reading the whole speech from LeJeune makes me a little ill, ok a lot ill...

Even this simple line is rife in duplicity:

"Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility."

Wonder how long this transition of 50,000 troops is gonna last? As long as the dusty wind blows and the oil flows, I wager...

[johnaries]

90. Oh, puh-leez!

Of course we're going to leave some support troops in Iraq. It would be stupid and irresonsible not to. And any troops we leave would HAVE to be "combat-capable" in order to respond and be able to defend themselves if "all hell breaks loose."

They won't be involved in active combat, but they have to be able to defend themselves. Which means they have to be "combat-capable".

It would be idiotic to leave any troops there who weren't "combat-capable" and able to defend themselves.

Just another example of how FDL likes to "spin" the truth. Shameful. Shame on FDL. And to think I actually used to like them. I feel FDL has betrayed me, just as they have betrayed the Truth.

[maryf]

92. 50,000 support troops...

seems a little overkill...but it's not that so much as it's so blatantly implied that we are outta there...we ain't and we ain't gonna be...

[blindpig]

95. um...

So an artillery regiment in the middle of Baghdad is necessary for the troops to 'defend themselves'? Or is it necessary to hold the city hostage?

[maryf]

96. +50,000

great question/post!