huffingtonpost.com — As their convoy reached the barbed wire at the border crossing out of Iraq on Wednesday, the soldiers whooped and cheered. Then they scrambled out of their stifling hot armored vehicles, unfurled an American flag and posed for group photos.
Aug 19, 2010 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
finally.
kaelyiestaAug 19, 2010
Stop taking government PR nonsense at face value:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/10/mercenaries-in-iraq-to-take-over-soldiers-jobs.html
leftiscorruptAug 19, 2010
At least all the press isn't going along with this BS.
The Guardian:
For most people in Britain and the US, Iraq is already history. That will have been reinforced by Barack Obama's declaration this week that US combat troops are to be withdrawn from Iraq at the end of the month "as promised and on schedule". For much of the British and American press, this was the real thing: headlines hailed the "end" of the war and reported "US troops to leave Iraq".
Nothing could be further from the truth. The US isn't withdrawing from Iraq at all – it's rebranding the occupation. Just as George Bush's war on terror was retitled "overseas contingency operations" when Obama became president, US "combat operations" will be rebadged from next month as "stability operations".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/04/us-iraq-rebranding-occupation
New York Times:
What soldiers today would call combat operations — hunting insurgents, joint raids between Iraqi security forces and United States Special Forces to kill or arrest militants — will be called “stability operations.” Post-reduction, the United States military says the focus will be on advising and training Iraqi soldiers, providing security for civilian reconstruction teams and joint counterterrorism missions.
“In practical terms, nothing will change,” said Maj. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, the top American military spokesman in Iraq. “We are already doing stability operations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?_r=1
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
I don't know, the article makes a good argument, but your screen name is "leftiscorrupt."
You wouldn't be cherry picking information to make Obama look bad because of bias would you?
leftiscorruptAug 19, 2010
Well, now you know why the Obama Administration hates Progressives (Or as they like to call us, the "Professional Left") Some of us don't just pretend to hate endless war during Republican Administrations. We actually hate endless war for reals.
Why would any group that claims to be opposed to war support our Government simply renaming the war in Iraq to "stability operations" while they publicly claim it's all over?
More from the Guardian:
"After this month's withdrawal, there will still be 50,000 US troops in 94 military bases, "advising" and training the Iraqi army, "providing security" and carrying out "counter-terrorism" missions. In US military speak, that covers pretty well everything they might want to do."
This is Obama's "Mission Accomplished Banner on the Carrier" moment. A better question is why do you support this lie?
swordedgeAug 19, 2010
They are saying "Combat Brigade," not "Troops." Big difference. The latter means everybody leaves. The former means there will be plenty of troops left.
unreal595Aug 19, 2010
I find it quite disheartening and sad that people who are wholeheartedly against on type of ideal are so quick to reprimand the relief of thousands. Go f**k yourself leftiscorrupt, look at the whole picture instead of right now, the US is moving in the right direction while your bulls**t is what is creating the obstacles in the way.
travh99Aug 19, 2010
the whole picture is business as usual. How in hell is the 'bulls**t' [AKA citings of the Guardian + NYT ] of LeftisCorrupt creating obstacles for our withdrawl from Iraq.... i think it's sad that you think the watchdog comments of citizens is what determines the military actions of corrupt governments.
unreal595Aug 20, 2010
It's the fact that the hardcore right wings are sooo quick to make sure that no one should actually be happy about any news that creates rejoice for many and enlightens our black president. It's good news, let it stay that way whether or not it doesn't show the other s**t that's going on.
leftiscorruptAug 20, 2010
When Robert Gibbs recently started hating on Progressives for not going along with Obama Administration lies he later apologized saying this:
"We should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now."
Glenn Greenwald's response:
"In other words: we should all stop criticizing the administration when it does things we think are bad, destructive and wrong, and instead dutifully place our allegiance to Party above all else by loyally and quietly working to elect more Democrats. Sorry: that's not going to happen. I vastly prefer the model of citizenship outlined by a Senator named Barack Obama in his 2005 Daily Kos diary:
In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.
Being a rational, engaged citizen means objecting when political leaders do things that you think are wrong or bad and praising them when they do things you think are good and constructive. That even includes President Obama. It's just that simple, and pointing to Scary John Boehner hovering in the corner in order to ratchet up fear levels isn't going to change that, nor should it. Barack Obama is President of the U.S. at least until January, 2013, and wields vast power. It's therefore vital that he, like any other political official, be held accountable for the bad actions he undertakes -- just as he himself always argued."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html
Oh, and Glenn's list of reasons from that same post on why you might just want to give the Obama Administration a stern talking to is pretty epic all by itself:
"You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with the Obama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because the President has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights."
Again, some of us didn't just pretend to be upset about many of these same issues under the Bush Administration. As hard as it is to believe for partisan trolls, some of us subscribe to real beliefs about what is right and wrong and hold those beliefs all the time.
America needs to end our endless wars, close our overseas military bases, and worry about nation building here at home.
kennykljAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
That's a pretty pessimistic attitude. Iraq has hit every checkpoint on the way to a full-fledged democracy (a constitution, local elections, etc) way faster than Japan or Germany did after WWII, despite residing in an unstable political region and having to deal with conflicts both between Iraqi insurgents and Americans, and between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. And as American troops have withdrawn, violence hasn't increased. Iraq knows what it's doing. It also has something South Vietnam didn't have: natural resources. Iraq is rich with oil, which gives it a leg to stand on internationally. They'll be just fine.
ramilehtiAug 19, 2010
Uh, no.
Iraq is still very much a country divided into warring factions. The security forces are not ready to handle the ongoing civil war. And being rich in oil has been more of a hindrance than an asset. Unless the government of that country is despotic. Very few oil rich countries are truly democratic. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
The North Vietnamese had a large, disciplined, well-equiped army.
The Iraqi insurgents, not so much. They may be able to harrass the government, perhaps even cause irreparable harm. But they won't be able to hold on to much ground.
xwatermelonAug 19, 2010
It's about time...
frccAug 19, 2010
Pssst. It's not really over.
xwatermelonAug 20, 2010
:(
omegaredAug 19, 2010
What a lie..... There are still 50,000 troops there. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
drjekelmrhydeAug 19, 2010
We have more than that in SK and Japan
/Not to mention Germany and others
phrawghAug 19, 2010
SK is more like 28,000 now.
ronpauliskingAug 19, 2010
and we shouldn't have them anywhere but here
rmxzAug 19, 2010
And people wonder why the country's near bankrupt.
Perhaps there should be a policy where whenever we have a permanent military base in some other country, they're required to put a military base of their own on the continental US. That way at least some of the money flows back into our economy instead of just being poured overseas.
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
Ronpaulisking. Ron Paul is king.
... Seriously? I mean... you're kidding right.
vbullingerAug 19, 2010
HeWhoPoops. He who poops.
... Seriously? I mean... you're kidding right.
keithlolbermannAug 19, 2010
HeWhoPoops,
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
The handle, Ron Paul is King, tastes of irony. That is all.
thawillmeisterAug 19, 2010
"And, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all of our troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
Here you go...
hedgiemasterAug 19, 2010
Yea that's what it said in the article.
insightfulAug 19, 2010
Yeah, so we should not bother changing and just bitch and whine on the internet. Great strategy.
Oh, I get it, we should vote Ron Paul who will solve all out problems if only if he was the President.
/s
atarioAug 19, 2010
Read more carefully. Last /combat brigade/. Not the last soldier.
djanakinAug 19, 2010
What part of COMBAT BRIGADE do you not understand?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Didn't you read the article???? They're only there to advise and assist.....with guns of course.
omegaredAug 19, 2010
The lie is that Obama and the Democrats said that if people voted them into office they would pull out of Iraq. Is leaving 50 000 soldiers in Iraq pulling out?
The US government has also increased the number of private security contractors to replace the army. So what as really changed? Only the public image they present. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
orbital318Aug 19, 2010
US has never pulled out... tee hee.
That aside they haven't, there will always be some sort of presence there. We have one in Germany, and Japan Korea and pretty much everywhere else the US has "won" or what ever the kids are calling it these days, seems more gray now.
linuxpersonAug 19, 2010
Aren't all military personnel combat ready? If not, what differentiates them from being civilians?
This whole, "combat unit" nonsense is political double speak.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
courtassassinAug 19, 2010
No it is not. There are combat units and non-combat units. Do you think the Chaplains are combat units? How about surgeons, cooks, admin assistants, radar operators, diesel mechanics... the non combat troops far outweigh the combat units.
Do most everyone carry a weapon (The Army doesn't have any guns) sure but the goal, role, and training given is much different.
artlukmAug 19, 2010
The war in Iraq was poorly executed from day one, but here's hoping the Iraqi people can build a decent democracy over the coming years. After all they've been through they deserve it.
akairennAug 19, 2010
"The war in Iraq was poorly executed from day one"
What absurd nonsense.
The Iraq debacle was what could only be termed epic success from day one. The way a bunch of smooth criminals easily duped the country into invading Iraq under lies about WMDs and terrorists, to the whopping - what, one week? - it took our military to topple an entire sovereign nation. It was a thing of true beauty - it conjures to mind an image of Uncle Sam holding down Adolf Hitler while handing a strap-on to the Statue of Liberty, and then the Statue of Liberty sodomizes Hitler while shouting, "WE PUT THE BLITZ IN BLITZKREIG, KRAUT MOTHERf**kER! HOO-AH!", while bald eagles fly about in the background, crapping bacon like jet exhaust.
Okay, where was I?
Oh, right. From day one, Iraq was a raging - if ill conceived and criminal - success. It wasn't until we got to the botched occupation stage that s**t went south in a hurry.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paradigm1220Aug 19, 2010
Remind me, why exactly were we there in the first place?
user_personAug 19, 2010
So when are you shipping out?
clone206Aug 19, 2010
What tends to happen, if you can get people to go along with a statement like "[t]he war in Iraq was poorly executed from day one", is that many of them will jump to the conclusion that the war was just, but mismanaged (I know, people are idiots).
That's why it's a dangerous statement. It draws attention away from the most important aspect of this war: it's immoral and illegal nature.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikimacAug 19, 2010
http://www.debka.com/article/8976/
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
Time to dust off the "Mission Accomplished" banner? /THIS time we mean it.
thebileballAug 19, 2010
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/Y/2/obama-shirtless-mission.jpg
jack416Aug 19, 2010
No. We're still keeping a contingent there and there's much work to be done.
But in spirit, I'm still hopeful.
user_personAug 19, 2010
If it's so important you should ship out -- they need you.
naasukAug 19, 2010
Yet, we still have troops there? Yeah, I'm sure we're done.
lrn2nerdAug 19, 2010
I'm just happy our guys are getting out of that s**thole.
Hopefully Obama holds true to his word and all of us will be out by the end of next year.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
It turned in to a s**thole only after the US decided to take a dump there.
user_personAug 19, 2010
That's adorable.
jabbrwockeyAug 19, 2010
You mean six months after being sworn into office?
ironpirateAug 19, 2010
Hooah!
aplusjimagesAug 19, 2010
Pacino was so good in that movie.
vbullingerAug 19, 2010
Pacino is good in every movie.
mwrlAug 19, 2010
Um, no this is not the truth. This is pro-Obama fluff. When the Air Force pulls its AC-130's out (which will never happen) then the combat mission is over. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atarioAug 19, 2010
It doesn't say the combat mission is over. It says the last combat brigade left.
mwrlAug 19, 2010
That is now how the press is advertising this.
ipecacneatAug 19, 2010
No it's not.
djanakinAug 19, 2010
What part of COMBAT BRIGADE do you not understand? Of course we still have some troops there.. including my brother, who is a computer network specialist.
setht79Aug 19, 2010
So according to mwrl's logic, the combat missions in Japan and Germany are still ongoing after 65 years...
superkendallAug 19, 2010
Right on Bush's original schedule...
Although he would have been smart enough to leave a few bases behind like we did in Japan and Germany.
mwrlAug 19, 2010
We didn't leave Balad Air Base, Camp Victory, or a few hundred FOB's around Iraq. This story is so BS it stinks.
shmageggyAug 19, 2010
Bush's original schedule? You mean the timetable that he staunchly resisted for years and only finally adopted because of intense public and political pressure? Oh yeah that one.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07122/782586-84.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-08-iraq-poll_N.htm
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ON31I80&show_article=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042400216.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/washington/16prexy.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261664,00.html
superkendallAug 19, 2010
Yep. So what? It's still the same schedule Bush laid out, that Obama is following to the letter.
At least Bush can be made to change his mind and do something right. Obama has not demonstrated that ability thus far.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
basalcellbosskAug 19, 2010
Still sucking Chimpy's c**k after all this time?
He was a failure. Accept it and get on with your life.
thetruthbringerAug 20, 2010
Don't you know it's racist to call him that? And for Allah's sake, don't call him a Muslim.
m0lluskAug 19, 2010
We should have bases everywhere all over the world because we can fix everyone's problems and we have lots of extra money to spend on stuff on the other side of the world that does not involve us.
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney, is that you?
crunchdiggAug 19, 2010
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 2003
richmomzAug 19, 2010
Yeah, last ones except for the 50,000+ still there.
/facepalm
djanakinAug 19, 2010
COMBAT BRIGADE.
f**k people. RTFA. s**t, in thise case, READ THE f**kING TITLE!
richmomzAug 19, 2010
Oh right, the guys that are still there must be the LAUNDRY brigade or something... /s
syko3599Aug 19, 2010
Did you come from the retarded brigade?
pmkenny1234Aug 19, 2010
Dear Mr. Precision,
How's this:
It's nice that the last combat brigade has pulled out, but it would be much nicer if we didn't still have 50,000 troops occupying the nation with no plan for removal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jfreemanAug 19, 2010
Because soldiers with guns aren't for combat... As long as we blindly accept the re-branding like djAnakin or Syko3559, all the killing will stop, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captininsanityAug 19, 2010
There is a plan for removal. They'll be gone next year (I forget the day, but you can look it up). Stop complaining this stupid war is finally over.
paradigm1220Aug 19, 2010
FWIW, I believe that you are correct. *All* troops will be out of Iraq in 2011....to be replaced by private securities/mercenaries.
adhomineeAug 19, 2010
I love anger typos. You can just hear the quivering of the finger slipping to form the 'e' after 'this'.
Maybe I'm just too imaginative.
ipecacneatAug 19, 2010
Now it's a ghost town...
mymindgrapesAug 19, 2010
These people are still living in the stone age. I expect nothing to come out of the billions poured into this.
mwrlAug 19, 2010
The Afghans live in the stone age, the majority of Iraqis do not.
hewhopoopsAug 19, 2010
You don't get out much, do you?
baldboy7Aug 19, 2010
Thank god this wasn't the Onion. I knew this was coming but even as of a few years ago this, sadly, would have article i could have imagined coming from the Onion. Finally they are heading home!!
mwrlAug 19, 2010
Heading home for three months then off to Afghanistan.
siszamAug 19, 2010
Or Iran
flammablewaterAug 19, 2010
Sad but true.
immelman42Aug 19, 2010
Better late than never. Now if we can just get our act together in Afghanistan. We either go all out and win (whatever that means) or we get out. Poop, or get off the pot, as they say. Until we define clear goals there, and a realistic plan to achieve those goals,we are wasting time, money and lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reposadoAug 19, 2010
Why are you being dugg down?
immelman42Aug 20, 2010
Habit, I guess.
jcharak58Aug 19, 2010
But one of my wife's child hood friends was just sent over to Iraq about 3 weeks ago
10lbhammerAug 19, 2010
that must mean we're still at war!
waiting2awakeAug 19, 2010
or the other 50K troops, or the mercs that are on their way...but look at it anyway you like.
10lbhammerAug 19, 2010
come on, waiting, I know you're smarter than that.
FTFA: By the end of this month, 50,000 troops will be serving in Iraq. As Iraqi Security Forces take responsibility for securing their country, our troops will move to an advise-and-assist role. And, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all of our troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year. Meanwhile, we will continue to build a strong partnership with the Iraqi people with an increased civilian commitment and diplomatic effort.
advise-and-assist, did you read that part? or the part that all COMBAT troops are now out of iraq? not sure where you got your info about mercs...
kungfumantis239Aug 19, 2010
To be fair, there are a lot of contracted combat forces(mercs) in the middle east right now.
djanakinAug 19, 2010
COMBAT BRIGADE. RTFA. No.. READ THE f**kING TITLE!
bigglyAug 19, 2010
Oh, shut up. Call it what you want, the fact is this is being touted as the end of the war because the troops are coming home. In reality, they're not all coming home. As a matter of fact, private military forces are being hired by the administration to continue the war. Hope you like paying for that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
doublebaconsodaAug 19, 2010
They moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.
This is the change you can believe in.
superkendallAug 19, 2010
Puppets? You're the one who's mouth is mimicking others words.
doublebaconsodaAug 19, 2010
I think for myself and if others have the same thought then they are as f**ked up as I am. When I meant puppets I meant those who follow every written word from their respective party's. Not the actual people who actually have ideas and objections.
I am a puppet to myself, so I agree, but I will not agree to anything anyone says if it against my own set of morals. Some will bend to their respective political party's ideals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
I'm a moderate f**k and I buried you just for saying you don't care.
This is change I can believe in, because it's exactly what he said he would do. It's about time we get serious about the country that actually had something to do with 9-11
djanakinAug 19, 2010
Sooo.. ANYONE who digg's you down is wrong. LOL. Ass.
danj484Aug 19, 2010
At least that particular manifestation of change was explicitly stated during the presidential race.
flammablewaterAug 19, 2010
NDP!
janineeeAug 19, 2010
get banned recently?
insightfulAug 19, 2010
First, it is not over but at least it is a start.
Second, where the conservative retards who will espouse the idiotic lines that they (the terrorists) will follow us home?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeAug 19, 2010
It hasn't been the conservatives that have supported this war for over a year now...
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
That's just because conservatives have no moral fiber.
They start a war and accuse everyone who doesn't support it unwaveringly of being un-American, and the moment a Democrat get's elected it becomes an issue to attack him on and a way to say, lust like you did "It hasn't been the conservatives that have supported this war for over a year now..."
It's the conservatives war, they started it, they yelled at liberals and told us to love it or leave it, and just because Obama might actually end it, you guys are now, finally, against it. You are the lowest form of life on earth.
It's nice that you admit that conservatives have no true ideology, and are just opportunistic thugs.
vbullingerAug 19, 2010
Watch "War Made Easy."
Lyndon Johnson used the same rhetoric about Vietnam. He said something like "if we leave there today, they'll be in Hawaii tomorrow and in San Francisco next week!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
baskinsAug 19, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
flammablewaterAug 19, 2010
You've won thousands of dead soldiers, thousands more wounded soldiers sucking money out of a dwindling economy, and a sprawling deficit. But Saddam is dead. Totally worth it.
Seriously, I can't believe the s**t your last government got away with.
jfreemanAug 19, 2010
Just wait til you see the s**t our new government will get away with - like replacing "combat brigades" with mercenaries and claiming that the troops are out of Iraq.
nikitabAug 19, 2010
You've also won the fact that Saddam, one of the most ruthless dictators this world has ever seen, is not raping his people and an entire country is now a place where people can try to build their lives in a way consistent with human values (you know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and that sort of "stuff").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq#Documented_human_rights_violations_1979-2003
areallygoodnameAug 19, 2010
@nikitab
From what i can see the worst crimes, the attempted Kursish genocide, happened in the 80's. Around the same time where you have pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand.
blackmesa108Aug 19, 2010
finally the beginning of the end of a stupid stupid mistake by the worst president ever!!!
lantzaAug 19, 2010
I feel like you're not giving Franklin Pierce nearly enough credit.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Yeah and they left me here in Baghdad!
crytekemployee3Aug 19, 2010
f**k Clinton
peterodactylAug 19, 2010
You first.
demonicumeAug 19, 2010
i just spoke with a my guidance counselor to volunteer to do another tour in Iraq.
vbullingerAug 19, 2010
Good luck killing random brown people for no reason.
kungfumantis239Aug 19, 2010
Shut up with that crap already.
alphalionAug 19, 2010
The troops left are meant to be be there for non-combat operations.
waiting2awakeAug 19, 2010
No they aren't, you don't have troops for "non-combat",
it is the troops leaving are going to be used elsewhere, and replaced with Merc's, but that doesn't have the same Obama friendly feel to it...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andrewdbAug 19, 2010
Bull s**t you don't have people for "non-combat", sign up to the military, ask about non-combat posititons.
kungfumantis239Aug 19, 2010
To add onto what AndrewDB said;
Combat troops are meant for assault, non-combat troops would include support troops(troops essential to operations and paper trails) and security troops, which technically do engage in combat but only when they're attacked. There's a difference.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
People need to understand the implications of suddenly pulling out every single military entity from Iraq.
It would leave the country in chaos. The fight for power would begin immediately. There would be a huge genocide, and the Sunni minority would be slaughtered. Civil war that would last for a decade with hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The troops that left were combat troops. These were troops that actively sought out insurgents and carried out combat missions like killing known insurgent leaders.
The people left will train the new Iraqi army and police. This is essential. It will also stay to uphold the balance of power, until this can be done by the new Iraqi army/police itself. There will be no more missions (at least official missions) to actively engage in combat missions. Securing the green zone and other vital military and civilian installations are critical. But control will over time be left to the Iraqi.
2012(?) is the plan to have even the non combat troops out.
andrewdbAug 19, 2010
It was chaos before we got there, it was chaos while we were there, and there will be chaos when we leave.
See how nothing changes no matter the president?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
There was not chaos before we got there. Yea they did live under a harsh dictorship. However there was order.
darkstar370Aug 19, 2010
Order????
What about the Kurdish uprise?
menosdabearAug 19, 2010
yay for lying... there are still plenty of troops there, and they are still getting shot at and shooting back... that would constitute as combat to me. But then we wouldnt have any s**tty feel good stories to report. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
And we didn't find every nazi, and some places in the south still keept slaves in all but name.
Yeah, nothings perfect. Sorry.
menosdabearAug 19, 2010
riiiight...... but we never claimed to have found every nazi...... and the government wasnt keeping slaves.... I see what you were trying to do there. But you failed very, very hard. Ask mommy for another bowl of cereal, go back to bed for another hr, then try again. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
janineeeAug 19, 2010
lying? The article says there are still troops there dips**t.
dralhaAug 19, 2010
One step towards ending the senseless slaughter instigated by arrogant war criminals who remain at large.
isenborgAug 19, 2010
Could someone explain why we are now DOUBLING our civilian force in Iraq? Is this just a shell game?
waiting2awakeAug 19, 2010
Yes we can....errrr...excuse me..I mean
Yes it is.
gsm54321Aug 19, 2010
Maybe it's because we aren't in a war any more and these guys will do security for what threats are left, you know, like what would be expected if we were to wind down the occupation.
isenborgAug 19, 2010
So, taking soldiers who are doing security out, while inserting contractors (like Black Water) who do security... isn't a shell game? Thanks for clearing that up.
mymindgrapesAug 19, 2010
Obviously I meant mentally.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
But doubling the amount of hired guns........................for a much greater price to the american people... A private makes about what $1400 a month? How much does your typical blackwater employee make? who's footing the bill?
UphemismAug 19, 2010
The American Taxpayer of course....Who else pays for everything?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Maybe we could just print the money so no one has to pay for it!
vidorianAug 19, 2010
Same s**t different name. Troops will stay in Iraq and continue to be killed. The map in the middle east was drawn by people who knew little of the regions people. The Iraqi people are divided, and the country should actually exist as 3 separate nations.
When we look at history we can see when this was done before it failed miserably. The former Soviet Union could only keep its separate countries to together by totalitarian regimes and force, the same way Hussein kept Iraq together. When the government holding the people down is dissolved cries of independence are heard.
As long as we stay in Iraq there will be violence and animosity, we can not use the tactics used by the previous regime to stifle independence. So the result is our appearance as occupiers and continued violence.
djanakinAug 19, 2010
I can't disagree with that, but, if the friggin people would wake up and learn tolerance, they could all get along.
vidorianAug 19, 2010
Will never happen, this type of societies beliefs have been held for hundreds of years. We hear a great deal about Israel and Palestine, but what about before Israel when it was Jordan who was treating the Palestinians so bad..
The beliefs were so ingrained that dictators knew the only way to hold them down was by force. Serbs, and Croatians. Chechen rebels, ira, you just can't reason when a belief is so ingrained in the heart and religious beliefs.
I'm all for can't we all just get along, but i also know when to say f**k it , how many more lives need to be sacrificed to the cause.
djanakinAug 19, 2010
Do you people even RTFA? COMBAT BRIGADE.
Of course not every troop is gone. My brother is one of them still there [computer networking], but his wife left two months ago.
luke1h7Aug 19, 2010
I know people who are in a combat brigade that are still there. So what do you have to say now, sucka?
curunirAug 19, 2010
Mission Accomplished!
luke1h7Aug 19, 2010
I personally know combat soldiers in a combat brigade in Iraq who had their titles changed to "advisors." They all have to tell their wives that they aren't coming back, that they are still in Iraq.
They are scouts.
rentalcanoeAug 19, 2010
So, did the Iraq War "pay for itself" in the end? I'm sure Bush and Co. wouldn't have lied to us about that.
enantiodromiaAug 19, 2010
We will be greeted as Liberators, with flowers thrown at the feet of our soldiers, and the oil profits will pay for the war!!!
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Iraq still has no functioning government. Likely, a military dictatorship will emerge to maintain stability--much like the one we toppled 8 years ago.
janineeeAug 19, 2010
and then, here comes America to save the day! And prop up another government that we can come in and replace in another 10 years or so.
chrizzly89Aug 19, 2010
Stupid war. It wasn't even a war.
Anyways, I wish the Iraqi troops good luck in handling the situation on their own. The remaining troop numbers are insignificant but helpful for advice and backup.
I'm glad this is finally getting somewhere on the road towards end.
jooklyAug 19, 2010
well if it wasn't a war than it was a straight up takeover
chrizzly89Aug 19, 2010
It was a war for a couple of weeks. But Iraqis pretty much gave up soon and then it was 7 years of systematic cleansing of terrorists.
Im not sure whether you can call that war. Maybe some strange form of it.
zaphodbblxAug 19, 2010
wrong! it was NEVER a war. no formal declaration of war was ever issued so its not legitimately a war
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I wonder what America will do when it has to fight an actual war, and not just occupy a foreign country, fighting what are essentially street gangs. What happens when America has to fight an actual standard military? Because this Iraq "war" and Afganistan "war" will be a cake walk in comparison.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
We would actually win a standard war. Since WWII that is what we have been preparing for. Unfortunatly it seems like the majority of places we will be fighting in the future are going to be more like Iraq than WWII or other more traditional wars.
harabeckAug 19, 2010
You are aware that Iraq had lots of tanks and a great many trained, uniformed soldiers at one time right? If anything, we do much better in conventional warfare than fighting insurgents. In fact, anyone that has done any amount of research at all into our military should know that. You're just an idiot.
danj484Aug 19, 2010
We steamrolled the Republican Guard in a matter of hours. A straightforward war is easy; it's the occupation and insurgency stuff that's difficult.
hetmanAug 19, 2010
Peace out. Be carefull and do not let the insurgents I E D you in your B U T T'"s.
lamberticusAug 19, 2010
I blame Obama.
flammablewaterAug 19, 2010
I blame the Iraqi government, since they set a mandatory pullout date of Nov. 2011. They want us the f**k out of there too.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
End the occupation
dmuxAug 19, 2010
what a crock of s**t, my old unit is still there right now.
frigginyatesAug 19, 2010
Mission Accomplished?
seaofcheeseAug 19, 2010
I dont buying it.
user_personAug 19, 2010
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
wateryouthAug 19, 2010
And then strait into Afghanistan. Great...
The middle east is wearing me out.
buckrogers1965Aug 19, 2010
I wonder if I can get a high paying merc job with one of the merc units that is doubling in size in Iraq?
amnesianAug 19, 2010
So let me get this straight: we're against the Iraq War, but the War in Afghanistan is okay because Pres. Obama is supports it?
pureeviljesterAug 19, 2010
the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 which is what we were told.
now bin laden said he had no part in 9/11 either but that's what everyone believes so we went to Afghanistan where he was.
PS: the majority of both parties supported both invasions.
jack416Aug 19, 2010
Wrong. The war in Afghanistan had and still has more legitimacy.
enantiodromiaAug 19, 2010
Misleading.
People are for the war in Afghanistan _for the same reason_ Obama is for it; because it's actually related to the attacks of 9/11, as opposed to the war in Iraq, which was related to an open letter signed by the PNAC during the Clinton years.
Try to keep up, please.
amnesianAug 20, 2010
9/11-related or not, the point is Al Qaeda operates in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and US+ally forces overthrew the governments of both countries. Both wars are similar in almost every aspect and yet most people have conflicting opinions.
pureeviljesterAug 19, 2010
voting for obama... officially worth it.
pimpofpixelsAug 19, 2010
It would be time to celebrate if they weren't on their way to Afghanistan.
orangesterAug 19, 2010
And then we sent them all to Afghanistan. I've had 3 friends deployed this past few months alone, some only getting a couple days notice before they ship out. The war is over, my ass.