YESTERDAY, I asked whether anyone could find me evidence that our troops are still engaged in combat in Iraq. I'm not as naive as the question might sound, but I do think that it's important that we be as precise as we can about how we define the de-escalating, but ongoing occupation. The problem I've had with some commentary about the President's drawdown and declaration that 'U.S. combat operations have ended' in Iraq is the insistence that little has changed since the announcement and the very public exit of 'combat' brigades in the heat of night.
What I was looking for was a clear description of just what our troops who are remaining will be doing in the way of engaging the Iraqi insurgents and armed resistance. I'm very aware that Iraq is still a dangerous place and I asserted that there will still be 'security' concerns which would compel our forces to continue with some sort of military engagement with that resistance. To me, that sort of activity would certainly be 'combat' in some form, but not the offensive activity that characterized the bulk of the mission there before and during the summer 'surge'.
In fact, the offensive missions our troops have been tasked with since the announcement of the President's draw down plan have been dialed pretty far down and really represent an effort to keep their precarious position secure and as safe as possible. Any offensive missions are supposed to be occurring in tandem with the Iraqi forces and it looks like that's what's happening. Acknowledging that isn't some affirmation of support from me, just a recognition that there have been important changes in the mission of our troops.
So my question was, "are our troops still engaged in combat?" Reports would suggest that, to an inarguable degree, they still are. And while the purpose and nature of the missions may well have been significantly altered, it matters little to the troops involved, or the Iraqis caught in their way, that our mission may be a defensive one or that we are just partnered with the Iraqi forces. Troops are still subject to attack and the Iraqis are still under the U.S. gun to some degree or the other. It matters little that the raids and military maneuvers aren't regarded as 'combat' by the Pentagon or the WH.
Regardless of the effort to define the occupation down (and it is de-escalating), some of the remaining 50,000 troops are still tasked with hunting down and fighting the ghosts and remnants of Bush's 'terror war'. There isn't any evidence that the 9-11 'al-Qaeda' are in Iraq or have any tangible ties to any of the resistance. But 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' (a resistance group who adopted the moniker of the 9-11 terrorists) still threaten the U.S.-enabled Iraqi regime and still draw the interest and attention of the military forces tasked with helping the regime stay safe and operable.
To me, fighting AQI isn't worth sacrificing even one American life. To the military, fighting AQI is an essential part of their lingering mission. That brings me to the reports detailing a snapshot of the military mission which still persists in Iraq for U.S. forces, despite the President's declaration of an 'end to combat'.
here's the report from the AP today: (
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD9HQ0GJ80)
The number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq dipped Tuesday to 49,700, dropping below the 50,000 threshold ahead of the end-of-the-month deadline set by President Barack Obama. But the war is not yet over for the remaining troops, who will continue to put themselves in danger on counterterror raids and other high-risk missions that aren't called combat but can be just as deadly.
Until the end of 2011, U.S. troops will mostly focus on training Iraqi soldiers and police to take over the nation's still-shaky security. They will counsel Iraqi officials on how to endear themselves to their citizens, whether through handing out soccer balls to kids or building irrigation systems for farmers.
But they will also still be on security patrols — like the one that Iraqi police said was hit by a roadside bomb Tuesday in the southern city of Basra, with no casualties immediately reported. And they will still be dying — the 4,416th U.S. soldier to die in Iraq was killed in a Basra rocket attack earlier this week . . .
There no other description which fits this type of military activity more so than 'combat', and it makes little difference in that description that our forces are teaming up with Iraqi troops and standing by while they do most of the fighting. It's still a dangerous mission for all involved, and it's a still pernicious one with our troops complicit in any harm done by the Iraqis they are 'handing over' control to.
That's not to say that the role and mission of the remaining forces hasn't changed dramatically. Here's a description of that from the AP:
Over 20,000 American soldiers in Iraq have been assigned to "advise and assist brigades" and will continue patrols and training exercises with Iraqis. Fewer than 5,000 are special forces who will team up with Iraqi troops on counterterror raids and other high-risk missions.
The rest of the 50,000 — about half of the U.S. force in Iraq — are high-ranking officers and headquarters staff who mostly will be planning military strategy through the final withdrawal.
From all appearances, the U.S. presence and activity in Iraq is still a clusterfuck -- nonetheless, a de-escalating clusterfuck, thanks to Pres. Obama. The President has made a determination to have 'all troops out by the end of 2011', and that still looks plausible and realistic. The WH has been upfront and clear about the remaining challenges which our troops left in the field in Iraq will face in the interim; notwithstanding the muddle that's been made by officials about their offensive role.
However, continued skirmishes and raids against 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' is a recipe for a self-perpetuating conflict against what really just amounts to typical Iraqi resistance, rather than some 9-11 threat to our national security. It is my hope that the administration puts a lid on our participation in these types of raids against the insurgency when the 'combat operations' officially end Sept.1 (except of course, for the purpose of defending the troops tasked to remain).
I'm a bit disappointed to find reports of continued skirmishes and assaults on Iraqis conducted with the assistance of the U.S. troops. I am somewhat tempered in my disappointment by the fact that the reduced force will be less and less capable of sustaining such offensive actions, and, will eventually be compelled to do little more than defend their deployed positions in the country if the President continues with his draw down to zero (I expect him to).
I am not tempered by these reports in my appreciation of the President's demonstrated determination to end the occupation. We are leaving next year and Iraqis will eventually be entirely responsible for their own battles against their insurgency (which we, unfortunately sparked and fostered with our invasion and occupation).
For that determination of our Democratic President to exit, I am sincerely grateful. For the troops which remain in harm's way, for the time being, I am sincerely dismayed to find them still engaged in Bush's phony, contrived 'terror war' in Iraq. This nonsense in Iraq can't end soon enough for me.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
