The Iraq War IS Ending

[sandnsea]

Twist it any way you want, for whatever reason you want, there has been a drawdown in Iraq for months, even if you weren't paying attention to it. Yes there will still be non-combat troops there, but the commitment is to have them out next year. Entire quote from today's speech regarding Iraq.

"Now, one of those chapters is nearing an end. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing-as promised, on schedule.

Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases.

We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office-more than 90,000.

Today - even as terrorists try to derail Iraq’s progress - because of the sacrifices of our troops and their Iraqi partners, violence in Iraq continues to be near the lowest it’s been in years. And next month, we will change our military mission from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces. In fact, in many parts of the country, Iraqis have already taken the lead for security.

As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year. During this period, our forces will have a focused mission-supporting and training Iraqi forces, partnering with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and military efforts. These are dangerous tasks. And there are still those with bombs and bullets who will try to stop Iraq’s progress. The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq.

But make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing-from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats. And as we mark the end of America’s combat mission in Iraq, a grateful America must pay tribute to all who served there."

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1802

[dipsydoodle]

1. ....to a civilian effort led by

your contractors more like it.

[JuniperLea]

2. Yes, by all means let's make shit up and give Obama crap for it...

Instead of waiting to see what the actual deal is.

I'm pretty fucking sick of this bullshit.

[Oregone]

3. "Instead of waiting to see what the actual deal is"

This entire thread is about praising prior to seeing the final outcome.

We do not know what 2011 will bring, nor do we know what the years beyond that will bring.

[dmallind]

5. More or less troops/deaths in Iraq now or before Obama? That's an actual deal too. NT

[Oregone]

8. Yes, but this thread is about the END of the Iraq War

We cannot say with certainty that will actually come

[dmallind]

9. We can surely say it's a crapload closer though, no? NT

[Oregone]

17. Its on the back burner. Afghanistan is in the deep fryer.

"Closer"? I'm not sure thats entirely accurate. Its in a different state. Its de-escalated. But we don't know if that will lead directly to a true end.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, one day is always "closer" to an end than the last, but that doesn't guarantee the death, chaos, and expense will stop in a reasonable amount of time.

I don't know what will happen. If there remains a potential to re-engage--through activity of "advisors"--its worrisome. I think when we see a clear end behind us, its time to jump for joy.

[ProSense]

11. "Is ending"

Last year when the President announced that he would remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, a lot of people pulled out the cynical "yeah right" and went on to demonstrate, every month since then, how impossible it would be to drawdown to 50,000 non-combat troops. Well, it's being done on schedule.

[Oregone]

21. I don't think that proves anything

People had a right to be skeptical then and so today. We need to keep up the pressure and let Obama know its not acceptable to re-escalate and relabel non-combat troops to combat troops (or use them as such). As long as any sizable force is in the region, engaged in some manner in a military effort, it leaves that door open.

You can choose to be quiet and have faith, or put pressure toward a goal (IOW "Go Out And Make Me Do It")

[dmallind]

27. It proves they were almost certainly wrong.

When does that become a precedent to base future opinion on?

[Oregone]

30. You require little for proof

The skeptical anti-war crowd is certainly wrong because 50K troops will remain thereafter labeled as "non-combat"?

Good God man.

[dmallind]

35. The skeptical "he'll never get to 50K by August" crowd were wrong indeed.

Wht is that hard to admit. Did they not exist or will we not make it? Either can be shown, one in a few minutes of seacrhing and one in 30 days.

So which is true and when will you admit it?

[Oregone]

42. I think you are overly revising history to create a "crowd" to rant against

The issue isn't the quantity of the troops, but the purpose that they will be used for. As far as Ive always been aware, people are skeptical that combat operations will end and that simply labeling 50K troops as "non-combat" makes them so.

Run a search...perhaps you will find a couple people doubting on the quantity, but by and large, most of the criticism was the notion about combat operations really ending and labeling troops "non-combat".

[dmallind]

45. Don't think so but let's move forward then with a question

What sort of metric should we use from next month to determine this?

US trooop deaths and their cause might be a good one. Non-combat soldiers can still be blown up, but few should die in firefights in raids on insurgent strongholds.

Or perhaps number of deaths caused BY US troops. This is a much harder number to find out, and again need not be zero to have non-combat troops, as they are surely entitled to fire on, say, a bomb-laden truck driving towards the embassy gates. But would a reduction here be a good metric?

Let's clarify now what a non-combat troop metric would be so we don;t have to argue without a real measure next time.

[Oregone]

46. "What sort of metric should we use..."

The actual end of US combat operations would be the only reasonable metric to determine if the remaining troops are really "non-combat".

[dmallind]

52. And how do you measure that

presumably none of us is privy to exactly what the individual squads are ordered to do, so surely there is an alternative we can measure. What would it look like to you? Are we doing any combat missions in Korea for example and how do you know?

[Oregone]

57. Well, I'm sure we can create a complicated, arbitrary, long-winded criteria, such that we can preten...

they are all "non-combat"....but come on...we all know how Orwellian that really is.

Id say that any qualified reports of US troops firing weapons in a non-defensive manner, from a non-defensive position would qualify as a measurement they are combat troops. IOW, if an advisor is involved in a military operation in any capacity beyond advising, they are probably combat troops.

Why call them "non-combat" if we are willing to lower the bar so much that there is no real distinction between them and combat troops? It becomes merely a label to influence public perception. How low would your bar be for "non combat"? In the end, does it actually mean anything at all?

[dmallind]

58. Not clear enough though

If we use that I can confidentlty predict that even in a bomb-laden SUV driving at the front door scenario, there will be claims that barricades would have worked, or that it was a plant, and so on. Iraq will still be dangerous. Lots of people will still hate Americans (even with good reason) so we need a cleare standard than something that can be argued subjectively.

The undermining in this case works both ways, as anybody in a non-combat role could still be called a cmopbat soldier if they need to defend themselves.

We will never know what role was commanded, so we cannot use that as a measure to decide whether this promise has been kept (unless of course you are willing to trust the Pentagon's claims, which I doubt).

[Oregone]

62. For fuck's sake

Then we might as well of just called this a non-war in the first place; fired non-bullets, sent non-combat troops, and dropped non-bombs.

Since we can never measure it, we oughta just accept labels and let that influence our thinking. That way, we can live in a world that never has war and always has "peace".

Sorry...if I see 50K non-combat troops involved in combat in Iraq, I won't be satisfied with labels. Call me whatever-the-fuck you will, non-person included.

[dmallind]

63. Yes for fuck's sake. Objective measures require DATA,.

We can measure it. I suggested how. You seemingly just want to leave weasel room to claim any soldier doing anything in Iraq ia on combat duty.

You won't see them on combat duty. You won't see their orders. I keep asking how you will know they were on it. If you won't know, will you claim one way or the other? I suspect I know the answer.

Honestly - will you EVER accept any deplotyed soldiers are not combat troops, and if so how?

[Oregone]

65. You are asking for an arbitrary interpretation of objective evidence

Therefore, the measurement is anything but objective. What I would call combat, you would spin as "defensive reactionary fire against enemy elements infringing upon the safety zone of a non-combat patrol that coincidentally encircled an insurgent hotbed".



Other than influencing public perception, I see no need to call them "non-combat" troops if we create nothing but negligible distinctions between them and "combat" troops.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

81. I think the statistics speak for themselves down from near 1000 a year casualties to only 43 this

year. The loss of life is massively down under President Barack Obama no 2 ways about it.

http://icasualties.org/

[Oregone]

83. So its not a war if no one dies?

Was there a war waged in Kosovo? Check the US casualties.

We should non-war the world by just dropping bombs from afar

[ProgressOnTheMove]

89. It's definitely less brutal and that's halfway there. He's not broken any promises he's lived up to

his word on the wars so far. If he had misled us on the direction he would take I could at least accept half the citicicism.

[Sheepshank]

31. So Obama gets crap

from the left for attempting to keep a promise? The issue being that we dont' know what the future holds so therefore, any attempt to keep a promise is a futile lie and a false premis. WTF?

What a bunch o' cods wallop.

[Oregone]

38. Thats just a distortion

Im clearly saying celebrating the END OF THE WAR today is premature.

Of course, a pro-Obama poster has said already that criticizing combat operations today that may happen in the future is premature and groundless.

So put your tent where you may.

[Sheepshank]

76. the absolute end of any existing war is a pie in the eye, un-soothsaying crap shoot

the possibility of getting involved in any new wars is a crap shoot.

What do either of those things have to do with the issue at hand, and that is the current tally on the attempt the keep this current promise?

[Oregone]

78. The current issue at hand: "The Iraq War IS Ending"

Well, is it? Is 50K troops with a "non combat" label the end of the war?

[Sheepshank]

79. end"ing" is not end"ed"...right?

one is on it's way there...the other has arrived.

Has anyone said we've arrived? Nah, I don't think so. I see a light at the end of the tunnel...no one I have read so far has said we've fully emerged from the tunnel. You tend to piss on hope and any evidence that those desires are on their way to fulfillment. But then, it's the general theme of your posts.

[JuniperLea]

50. That's what I'm sayin'!

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... even here, which I find beyond the fucking pale.

This is making shit up and giving him shit for it, plain and simple.

[SunsetDreams]

59. Yep, it's obvious.

[TheKentuckian]

82. No he isn't. Every troop and contractor out wins with me

Reclassifying 50,000 troops is not ending anything. That's more than we had in Afghanistan when he took office by about 50%.

That's spin free and is what it is.

[Orsino]

85. My cynical "yeah, right" had nothing to do with the possibility of an Iraqi drawdown.

It had to do with America's culture of eternal war, and my expectation that many of those troops will simply rotate into Afghanistan.

Ihat's happening. I give the president all sorts of credit, however, for his sleight of hand so far. He has successfully tricked us into getting the fuck out of Iraq, with few or no political consequences to himself. That's not peanuts.

If Afghanistan alone is simply a smaller war than was Iraqistan, well, that has to be some sort of step forward, doesn't it? Even if American militarism remains intact, and yet another generation of young men and women are fooled or forced into accepting endless war as the status quo?

So I'll still say, "yeah, right."

[ProSense]

6. "We do not know what 2011 will bring"

We know what August 30, 2010 will bring: an end to combat troops in Iraq.

Celefuckingbrate.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. At last!

[Oregone]

12. "an end to combat troops in Iraq"

If people who want to see the war actually end were satisfied with labels and proclaimations, they probably would of shut the fuck up after:



"combat troops"

:rofl:

No one has a crystal ball. Time will tell how the Iraq Conflict will proceed, if at all.

[ProSense]

16. Oh yeah, I see your point:

[zipplewrath]

13. It's a rhetorical flourish

It's kinda hard to celebrate what is basically a rhetorical flourish. There will still be troops operating in Iraq and they will still be in harms way. He even warned you in that speech that there could be more action. It's a long year and a half to the end and it isn't clear why he wants 50000 troops there into next year. He could have them all out by Christmas if he wanted, so he wants to do something with them. He could have had them all out by LAST Christmas but chose not to.

[ProSense]

14. "There will still be troops operating in Iraq and they will still be in harms way. "

No they will not be, not anymore than diplomats operating in combat zones around the world.

[zipplewrath]

19. In his own words

"During this period, our forces will have a focused mission-supporting and training Iraqi forces, partnering with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and military efforts. These are dangerous tasks. And there are still those with bombs and bullets who will try to stop Iraq’s progress. The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq."

We are still occupiers and we will still be under attack. I can't help it if you won't listen to his own words.

[ProSense]

22. There are people with bombs and bullets

that target U.S. embassies and stations, nothing new.

[zipplewrath]

36. That isn't what he's talking about

They are going to be going out on offensive missions, in coordination and support of the Iraqi forces. They will be executing counter terrorism efforts. And the facilities won't be "embassies", they'll be military bases for a while longer.

[sandnsea]

43. 90,000 troops is not rhetoric

So many people showing their true colors. After saying they cared about Iraqi lives, they now prove they don't care if Iraqis die at all, just pull the troops out and let them kill each other off. Sounds like a bunch of freepers really.

[Oregone]

44. Theyll be fine. I trust them

[zipplewrath]

69. Um, we kill them

In case you haven't noticed, we were killing alot of Iraqis. Why is it better if we kill them than if they kill each other? Why is it better if we stand around and don't intervene while a virtual genocide goes on, or if they do? War is what you avoid. You don't avoid that by engaging in it.

[dipsydoodle]

49. I'm not making anything up

Any who do remain will just be free game. They're hardy likely to be welcome there given the aggregate numebr of Iraqi detahs which have occured since the illegal occupation began.

[JuniperLea]

51. Unless you have a bonafide, thoroughly and constantly accurate crystal ball...

Then you sure as hell are making shit up.

[dipsydoodle]

66. See post #59 here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4488560#4488860

Mist I assume.

[JuniperLea]

77. "Laying plans" "Might" "Could"

There's nothing I'd call concrete in that at all.

[dmallind]

4. No it can't be - 46% of DU is emotionally invested in proving Obama=Bush NT

[zipplewrath]

15. Some were emotionally invested in alot of things

Like the public option, no mandates, no cadillac taxes, drug price negotiation, troops out in 16 months, Gitmo closed, DADT in first 100 days....

At this point we actually wait until things have actually happened.

[dmallind]

23. ...and often lie about it when it has happened unfortunately

what with Bush=Obama imbecility on full display and pretending neither financial regulation nor consumer regulation nor health care reform nor Iraqi drawdowns nor anything he does is any improvement.

[zipplewrath]

32. Aw, a bit of hyperbole

It is unfortunately a reality of our politics these days. It seems that one must either be the second coming, or the anti-christ in politics today. If you disagree with someone, apparently criticism must either be expressed in absolute terms, or be viewed that way. Support seems to need to be expressed in similarly monochromatic terms.

[dmallind]

37. Not on my part

Those claims have been made. Here today. And even verified in a quick straw poll. I am saying they are wrong. I am NOT saying Obama is the second coming, or perfect in ideology or political savvy. So whose is the hyperbole?

[zipplewrath]

67. The folks that equate the two

The Bush = Obama folks are engaging in a bit of hyperbole. But so are the "historic achievement" folks. Or the "greatest progressive legislation in a century" folks. Not to mention the "he stopped the torture" or "he closed gitmo" folks.

[AlinPA]

10. I have been watching the "news". Not much is said about it, of course.

[Sheepshank]

28. of course....n/t

[bvar22]

18. 50,000 "Non-Combat Troops"?

LOL

Put the shit in a different box and change the label.
Makes a good Talking Point.
.
.
.
Call me when the last "non-combat" troop leaves, and I can enjoy my "Peace Dividend".

[dmallind]

25. There are troops in Germany and Japan, etc too. Are they combat troops? NT

[bvar22]

47. As a matter of fact, YES.

ALL troops are Combat Trained.
Will the "Non-Combat Troops" in Iraq be "combat trained" and still carry guns?

[dmallind]

54. changing teh measure again

Are they involved in combat?

[bvar22]

60. YOU are the one "changing the measure"

I have been consistent.


"Combat missions have ended in Iraq."
.
.
.
Same shit.
Different package.

[dmallind]

61. So because Bush lied Obama must be lying also?

How do you know the troops left will be ordered on combat missions?

You are obviously NOT being consistent if you think trrops in Iraq immediately after Bush's statement are doing the same as those in germanty and Japan.

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. What is the mission of the troops in Germany and Japan? Do you know?

Are there ANY offensive weapons there? If the answer to that is "yes", then where are the people who are trained in their use? Are they there?

[ProSense]

26. "Call me when the last "non-combat" troop leaves"

Why, so you can claim that they're not really leaving?

[Jokerman]

20. All according to Bush's plan.

Which will of course leave a large number or "non-combat troops", "private contractors" and the newly formed state department "security forces" in place.

The killing will continue as the war criminals remain unpunished. Not much af a success story.

[ProSense]

24. Bush's plan was to remove all combat troops by the end of August?

I know it's hard for some people to give the President credit for anything, but really?

[Recursion]

29. A similar drawdown was proposed & approved under W, yes

Obama tweaked it to get more line units out by the end of this month.

[ProSense]

33. Bush made a last ditch effort before the election and called for 8,000 troops to be pulled

from Iraq by the time he left office, leaving 138,000 troops. When Obama took office, there were 144,000 troops in Iraq.

[Recursion]

40. The 2011 drawdown was negotiated in the summer of 2008

As part of the status of forces agreement between the US and the "new and improved" Iraqi government. Even McCain had the honesty to point out to some Republicans complaining about the drawdown that it was W's administration that first negotiated it.

Still, it's a good thing to see it happening.

[Oregone]

34. But basically, SOFA is the agreement we are seemingly acting according to

Obama withdrew from Iraq cities by June 30th, 2009 (which he could have done earlier), and will withdraw all us forces by December 31st, 2011 (which can be done earlier)

The major benchmarks Bush negotiated are being adhere to

[Recursion]

39. Right. Both W and Obama were handed the status of forces agreement State negotiated

And it gave them both leeway that they made some different decisions with, but it's the SOFA that put the 2011 deadline on military operations.

[phleshdef]

64. I seem to recall candidate Obama calling for the same time table before it existed.

Seems like that was even being discussed on DU at the time that we got news of the withdrawal agreements.

Regardless, just because Obama wasn't President when certain things were agreed to doesn't mean we shouldn't give him credit for basically doing what he said he was going to do during the campaign as far as his Iraq withdrawal promises went.

[zipplewrath]

68. Well which do you want to credit him for?

following the SOFA, or not achieving his own promise of 16 months?

[phleshdef]

73. He discovered he needed more time. Thats how adults operate in the real world.

[zipplewrath]

75. He wanted more time

He still wants more time. So why is one excusable and one is a cause for celebration and they both end up with more time at war?

[zipplewrath]

41. Really

One can discuss why, but Obama basically has stuck to the SOFA. Considering the political situation in Iraq right now, McCain would have probably had to do the same thing. There's no real government to negotiate with, and it would be hard to find anyone in Iraq right now to negotiate an extention. They barely have a government and no one would want to appear to be favoring a longer stay by the US.

[DCBob]

48. There is a long way to go to end this thing but this is a big step forward..

I hate this war and think it is doing more harm than good. I joined in three of the anti-Iraq protests in DC and one of the main reasons I voted for Obama was to end this war. I wish we were out of there now but I realize it takes time to wind this monster down. But regardless its good news.. despite the naysayers.

[sandnsea]

56. I think we're 3/4 of the way

When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. At his Camp Lejeune speech on February 27, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would end its combat mission on August 31, 2010, and retain a transitional force of up to 50,000 U.S. troops to train and advise Iraqi Security Forces; conduct partnered and targeted counter-terrorism operations; and protect ongoing U.S. civilian and military efforts.

- By January 2010, there were 112,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. By the end of May 2010, that number had been reduced to 88,000. General Odierno made the decision in May 2010 that positive developments in the security sector permitted the drawdown to go forward as planned. The final tranche of the drawdown to reach the President’s commitment to end combat operations began in earnest in June 2010. By the end of August 2010, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will be further reduced to 50,000. On August 31, Operation Iraqi Freedom will end. The transitional mission will be called Operation New Dawn. Consistent with our agreements with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

- By the end of August 2010, U.S. Forces in Iraq will reduce the total number of equipment in Iraq from 3.4 million pieces in January 2009 to a total of 1.2 million pieces, which are required to support the remaining troops which will be organized six Advise and Assist Brigades plus enablers. Lieutenant General William Webster, who commands the Third Army and is overseeing the drawdown, said “This is the largest operation, that we’ve been able to determine, since the build-up for World War II.”


- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

- The drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq since January 2009 comprises roughly three times as many troops as the President ordered to Afghanistan last December.

[Radical Activist]

53. It's amazing how determined some people are to piss on good news.

Hundreds of thousands of people put in countless hours of effort to end this war. I saw numerous posts crucifying Obama for not staying on schedule for Iraq withdrawal. Apparently that no longer matters. God forbid we celebrate anything that might make Obama look good.

[zipplewrath]

70. Do you know what you're celebrating?

Because there are alot of people who misunderstand what's been accomplished, and who arranged it.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. And the Iraqi "conflict" is beginning.

[moksha]

71. 50,000 non-combat troops that will engage in combat.

It ain't over till it's over. It ain't ending till it's ended.

[Oregone]

72. With no crystal ball, you aren't allowed to criticize combat that *may* happen

After all, this thread is only for praising an end of the war that only *may* happen


Besides, there will be no further "combat". After August 30th, all Iraqis will become our friends. Further skirmishes are merely results of "friendly-fire"

[moksha]

74. The DoD even said that they will still engage in combat.

I'd like to note here that nearly 200 US troops have died in Iraq under Obama, close to 1,000 wounded.

Once again "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended!"


Not to mention that sometime this year, over half of all the US deaths in Afghanistan will have occurred under the Nobel Peace Prize President.

But, I digress. Yea, no combat! Yea! We won! The war is (far from) over!

[Barack2theFuture]

80. eventually.

we've pulled out nearly half the troops, and we'll redefine the last 50,000 (the total of dead in Viet Nam) as not quite "troops."

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (again)

[sandnsea]

84. Jan 2009 144,000 troops

Aug 2010 50,000 troops.

See post above. We are 3/4 of the way out. This is Vietnam '73, not '63. Except hopefully we will prevent a Vietnam '75.

[BeyondGeography]

92. Far fewer soldiers are dying...I wonder if that means anything to them

[wuvuj]

86. Maybe the top 400 families....

...would like to pay tribute? Like maybe getting their GOP (and bluedog) lackeys to "support the troops" after they come back...in whole or in part(s)?

"And as we mark the end of America’s combat mission in Iraq, a grateful America must pay tribute to all who served there."

Then...possibly...there would be a period of mourning for all the lost Iraqi lives wasted in a useless war...except for maybe the new oil expected on the market...to enable profits for the top 400 and to LUBE and FUEL the MIC/HS?

[mike_c]

87. utter bullshit propaganda....

Thank you for today's DLC talking points.

The war against Iraq will be over when no American troops remain on Iraqi soil, Americans cease killing Iraqis, and the MIC stops profiting from our aggression there. It's sickening to hear folks parse the meaning of "ending war" so finely. No one is really fooled by such double-talk.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[LittleBlue]

88. Orwellian nonsense. War = peace?

How is leaving 50,000 troops as peacekeepers the "end" of a war? That's just silly propaganda.

[SpartanDem]

93. OP didn't say it was over

but that it's ending, as in the process is still going on, those 50,000 will be gone by next year.

[Hydra]

91. Was isn't ended until they all come home

I'll be happy to cheer then, assuming they aren't shipped right back out again somewhere else.