Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Is Iraq Combat Really Over For US?

WASHINGTON – Despite President Barack Obama's declaration Tuesday of an end to the combat mission in Iraq, combat almost certainly lies ahead.

And in asserting the U.S. has met its responsibilities in Iraq, the president opened the door wide to a debate about the meaning of success in the muddle that most — but not all — American troops are leaving behind.

A look at some of the statements Obama made in his Oval Office speech and how they compare with the facts:
___
OBAMA: "Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended."

THE FACTS: Peril remains for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops still in Iraq, who are likely if not certain to engage violent foes. Counterterrorism is chief among their continuing missions, pitting them against a lethal enemy. Several thousand special operations forces, including Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, will continue to hunt and attempt to kill al-Qaida and other terrorist fighters — working closely with Iraqi forces. Obama said, "Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission," while stopping short of a full accounting of the hazards ahead for U.S. troops.
___
OBAMA: "We have met our responsibility."

THE FACTS: That depends entirely on how the U.S. responsibility is defined.
Sectarian division — the danger that Obama said as a presidential candidate had to be addressed before Iraq could succeed — continues to deprive the country of a fully functioning government. U.S. goals for reconstruction are unmet. And although the U.S. says Iraqi forces can handle the insurgency largely on their own, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter a possible attack by a neighboring state.

GO HERE to read more.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

awww how cute! hes got his own little mission accomplished banner!

lmclain said...

We did in Iraq what we will do in Afghanistan...Go into a country that is not a threat to us (directly) and wreck it...destroy the infrastructure, divide the population, attempt to impose American morality and ideals (that are COMPLETELY foreign to them and in most cases, unwanted), upset the political and social structure, waste thousands of brave American lives while politicains fight over which one of them is the most patriotic (when the great majority of them have NEVER been in the military or sacrificed a son or daughter to some politicians war). Either fight the war all out or get out. We half-assed everything we've done in BOTH countries and too many families (middle and lower class families, don't forget) will never see their sons and daughters again. I'm willing to bet that if every member of congress was forced to serve a few months on the front lines of each war they start and approve, there would be NO wars....cowards and sissies, all of them.

Alex said...

Imclain, I can't believe it, but I agree with you 100%

Anonymous said...

9:55 you don't seem to realize the PURPOSE of war. You can't make much money fighting a war "all out". If you fight "all out" then it ends quickly.

Never-ending, agonizingly painful, gut wrenching low level wars are extremely profitable for some of America's most profitable companies.

Anonymous said...

imclain, did you forget where the terrorist who attacked us were camped out at? Did you forget who was actively befriending and assisting the terrorists? If you think there was infrastructure to destroy and an undivided population in Afghanistan prior to the US coming in, then I'm gonna need you to pick up a nonfiction book sometime soon. But I can agree on some of your other points.

Anonymous said...

imclain has a very narrow view of the world .He has his beliefs and refuses to think outside that little box. People like him are called kool aid drinkers .

Anonymous said...

Hey Alex and Imclain, Is there ever a legitimate reason to go to war ?

lmclain said...

12:21...ya got me there...there wasn't much in that third world country, but whatever was there is now in shambles....I suppose I'm mostly angry at these politicians who send our men and women to die in some bullsh** war, but when it was THEIR turn to fight for their country, they RAN, or HID, or got DEFFERMENTS. Cowards. Punks. Sissies. Bush? Hid in some National Guard unit and couldn't even be found half the time. Clinton?? LOL! Obama?? He's so ashamed of this country he can't stop apologizing to every country on the planet for how bad we are....the only thing he's ever joined was his hand to a racist chick named Michelle (read her Princeton thesis and get back to me on it). 10:49 was absolutely right...we fight these unwinnable wars to prop up the economy and stir up the population in a "USA! USA! USA!" frenzy to distract us from the real issues. I'm just disgusted with the whole shebang..and I'm a Republican!!..have a nice day...

Alex said...

Yes there are sometimes legitimate reasons to go to war. Nazi invasion in 1939-41 would be a good example.

lmclain said...

3:22 --- I have a fairly broad view of the world...but I don't listen to propaganda from anyone, but, rather, watch the actions of people. And I ain't impressed by too much I see....As Truman said, "I dont' give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they THINK it's hell". My man...... and 3:23-- I say Pearl Harbor was a legitimate reason for war, as was the taking of our sailors off ships in international waters (war of 1812)....the Civil War was a legitimate reason (the south said "states rights---bullsh**, but the North & Lincoln had it right---preservation of the Union and elimination of slavery)....we did NOT need to attack Iraq for 9/11, nor did we need to invade Afghanistan for Bin Laden. My grandad was in WWI in Europe (got gassed, too) my father was a Marine in WWII and I'm a military veteran. War IS necessary sometimes, but NOT very often.

Anonymous said...

What did we learn from WW I ? If you don't get involved your going to have a world war II ! The middle east has always been unstable and had finally made it to our shores. We were right to take the fight over there,You can argue all you want about the reasoning the fact remains America had to kick some ass and try and stabilize the region or at least have some military bases build and ready to respond or just be a threat. Muslims don't consider us an enemy because we back Israel or any other reason other then the fact we are not Muslim. Their Koran tells them to spread Islam if not by peace then by the edge of a sword .

Anonymous said...

Remember when Obama said the surge was a huge mistake and Harry Reid said the war was lost and the surge had failed? November can't get here soon enough !

Anonymous said...

Hey Alex if the U.S. had the chance to have killed Hitler in 1938 would it have been justified ?

lmclain said...

4:57.....your reasoning is correct, but your facts are not....we did not "kick ass" anywhere over there, except in the first month...after that, our politicians instituted a policy of "limited agression"...our troops were not allowed to do things like open fire first (BEFORE being fired upon), which meant your son had to hope they MISSED with their first shot. They were also not allowed to fire at people who were not DIRECTLY engaging them, which meant the man or woman who was ferrying ammo and such to enemy fighters COULD NOT BE SHOT. If your son saw a fighter walking down the street with a f'ing rocket launcher (everybody needs one, ya know), he was not allowed to shoot him (that is until it was fired at him or his buddies). In one publicized incident, Marines traced the wires to a roadside IED to a couple of guys hiding in the reeds. They were NOT ALLOWED TO KILL THEM. They had to "capture them"....You want a war?? Then fight. All out...Kill EVERY SOB in the battle area. Every time. Like Patton said..."make the OTHER poor dumb SOB die for HIS country". But our pansy ass "don't HURT anybody" leaders didn't want to waste any extra Muslims...we just need to introduce more of them to their whack ass GOD (who by the way, is NOT the same God I worship, no matter what Obama says...)

Anonymous said...

I cant beleive there are still Morons out there than believe the Terrorists that attacked us where from Iraq. And yes, Iraq had an infrasructure, had museums, jobs, cash, and an army that kept the peace in the only way the people fighting undestood. And it worked.

If any one with an education they paid for thinks Saddam was our enemy, they need to get a refund for the education. He was a tyrant, and a dictator, but it worked for him. Did we make it all better? Yea, right...

Anonymous said...

4:59, I also remember when Obama said the war was a waste, the WMD intelligence flawed, the al queda links sketchy, and the cost too high. Turns out he was right on the big questions before being wrong on the smaller ones.