Anyone have any evidence at all that U.S. troops are still engaged in combat in Iraq?

[bigtree]

There's been what I would call opportunistic and misinformed complaints about the designation of troops in Iraq. Pres. Obama says that 'combat operations have ended' for U.S. troops remaining. But there are certainly troops left and arriving who are combat ready and have the capability to engage in combat. That makes perfect sense if, as most observers on either side of the debate admit, that Iraq is still a dangerous place. It makes no sense for the reduced forces to render themselves defenseless and the combat capability of a number of troops who remain or are arriving is a natural function of a military deployment into a danger zone.

The troops who are arriving are not additional forces, rather, they are there to allow troops who have reached the end date of their deployment to be rotated out to home. The number of troops in Iraq have been reduced from a high of 160,000 to a little over 50,000 and falling. Many of them are support troops and many are there to provide continued security for our U.S. contingent who have been tasked to remain and advise and train Iraqi forces.

I'm certainly no fan of any troops remaining at all in Iraq, but there is absolutely no evidence that the troops who remain are engaged in anything more than the President outlined in his draw down plan. If anyone has any concrete evidence that the remaining forces are engaged in direct combat, contrary to what the President promised, I'd like to see it.

[RandomThoughts]

1. No way I can answer that, havn't left house in quite awhile.

Although I did hear two sonic booms. Although that's not about Iraq is it.

[Sinistrous]

2. +1

[TheKentuckian]

3. It isn't disputed. Those forces will continue to take place in counter-terrorisim actions

and embedded "training".

All that is combat.

Just saw Biden talking about a long term relationship.

[bigtree]

5. that's not combat as it's being represented by critics

. . . who insist the U.S. aggression is going to continue unabated.

[sailor65]

17. Combat is Combat....

when you're downrange, it makes no difference at all what the critics or supporters call it.

[bigtree]

20. there are some aspects of that determination that do make a difference

. . . in the interpretation and in the implementation. If I'm wrong about this administration and their representation of our military involvement there I want to know it. I don't believe I am.

[Better Believe It]

38. Are the U.S. troops armed with weapons or are they just handing out flowers and chocolates?

[TheKentuckian]

40. How is it not combat? They ain't running classrooms and counter-terrorism is certainly live action

[zipplewrath]

4. Not sure what you are looking for

There are supposedly about 5000 "trainers" who are conducting instructional activities. The balance are there for the reasons the Obama outlined that included combat missions against Al Queada and for support, when requested, by the Iraqis. They will also participate in "training" missions and in force protection and security. Beyond that, it would seem your concern is more about what is the mix between these various activities. I'm sure that varies regularly and I would anticipate that the combat missions would decrease over time, as will the troop levels. In the end, there will be the installation of the State Department Security personel which will number around 9000. I'd anticipate that by the time the troop levels are down that low, all they'll be doing is the security mission that the state department contractors will take over.

[bigtree]

6. from what officers interviewed have said

. . . the U.S. will assist in some Iraqi operations as advisers and will provide logistical help and training in some cases. But that's not a continuation of the type of combat operations that most critics are insisting will occur or are occurring.

[zipplewrath]

10. Well, I'm not sure what you think isn't happening

Obama clearly laid out what they'd be doing, and two of those are clearly still "combat". They'll be doing anti-terrorism raids, and they'll be supporting/accompaning the Iraqis on missions and patrols as requested by the Iraqis. Additionally, there will be training missions in which they will be along side Iraqis in patrols/raids. Beyond that they will also be doing security for American installations and personnel. Finally, there are basically a small continent of instructors.

Now each of those carry different levels of risk and they will be participating in a presumably steadily reducing level of frequency. I guess I'm not sure which critic you are disputing, and what they said that you dispute.

[bigtree]

15. Actually, some troops will accompany Iraqis on their own initiated missions

. . . and serve as advisors and provide some logistical support. But, although the military has said our forces could be called on for 'anti-terrorism raids, the military has also said they don't anticipate they will actually be doing more than advise and logistically assist Iraqi forces in Iraqi initiated 'operations.'

It may well sound like business as usual (as critics contend), but for the vast majority of troops their role HAS changed, drastically, from the U.S. initiated offensives which were escalated during the 'surge' period. I think that even you overstate their involvement. Sure, there is the potential that the military will backtrack and begin to initiate 'anti-terror' raids and such, but there is no evidence that that's happened. To the contrary, the meager forces that remain which have 'combat' capability are not going to be inclined start up the raids for the simple reason that the force is reduced past the ability of our forces to sustain such an offensive posture.

[zipplewrath]

21. As compared to when?

Their direct role in most of the raids, patrols, and other actions has been fairly minimal for the better part of the last year. Their role hasn't changed much, if we are talking between July and September, it was just a rotation of certain units out and new ones in. It will become even more minimal as time progresses. But as we have seen in just the last week, there is still severe dangers, even for the men just doing security escort, or base patrols.

What has happened here in the last month was just some name changes, some different shoulder patches. Not much else has changed. The significant changes either happened 9 -12 months ago, or are still several months off, depending upon what significance one is looking for. 50K troops aren't there just to raise a flag or two. Alternately, which may be what you are digging for, they aren't particularly there to achieve any "new" missionary goals. They are finishing off what was started a good 2 years or so ago. That's a dangerous mission that remains dangerous, and is shrinking everyday.

[bigtree]

25. of course there are still dangers

. . . and, you are correct that their role has been reduced for some time now. It just makes no sense (to me) to assume that their 'offensive' role will be just the same with this drastically reduced force. You are correct that that role is dwindling.

[zipplewrath]

28. "Just the same" as what?

It will be "just the same" as it was last month, or next month. Yes, over the next 18 months, the mission will have to narrow as they lose certain capabilities when various units leave. Not every unit has exactly the same capabilities, although there is over lap. But at some point you lose the capacity to do certain sorts of missions. Of course, if the Iraqis have gained that ability, you can continue to join them in their missions basically right up until the end. At some point though all the forces are doing nothing but protecting the bases and doing escort duty. But for now, it's pretty much doing the same things they've been doing for months, just with different units because it was time for the previous ones to rotate home.

[another saigon]

11. "from what officers interviewed have said"

seriously?

:rofl:

[bigtree]

16. well, I did ask for evidence to the contrary

. . . being cynical about what the military is claiming is just that, cynicism.

[another saigon]

43. not really

I prefer to call it reality. Have they ever been straight in my entire life? No.

[hayu_lol]

7. All troops are combat troops...

what you choose to call them is 'smoke and mirrors'. As the numbers of regular troops are shipped home, the number of more highly-paid and less-controlled mercenaries are increasing. More BANG for the buck, so to speak.

More fairy tales out of DC for us to attempt to digest.

When these 'trainers'... cough cough...are shot at, they will most assuredly fire back with the weapons that they will continue to carry--their lives depend on those weapons.

[LostinVA]

13. And one of then died yesterday in Iraq

[phasma ex machina]

63. +1 except it's more BUCK for the BANG. nt

[LostinVA]

12. 50K not 5K

[zipplewrath]

14. About 5K are specifically instructors

Classroom types basically, although I'm sure much of the training actually occurs outdoors. But there is a certain amount of real live instruction going on and those guys aren't particularly going to be going out on patrol.

[LostinVA]

23. ah

[seattleblue]

8. Straight from the horse's mouth....

http://www.usf-iraq.com/news/press-releases/us-service-member-killed-in-southern-iraq http://www.usf-iraq.com/news/press-releases/suspected-aqi-member-criminal-associate-killed-3-others-arrested

[grahamhgreen]

41. OP - this is what you are looking for (the war is a scam).

[mike_c]

9. "support troops" for imperialism and occupation....

I don't give a rat's buttocks what they're called. That's just "message control" and spin. Combat troops, support troops, fascist thugs-- it's all the same to me. They don't belong in Iraq. Period. Not in my name.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, NOW!

[bigtree]

18. well, I'm with you on that point

But, I read a poster who made a very good point using opposition to oil drilling as an example. Folks say they oppose drilling, the poster said, then, because they oppose the drilling of oil, that's all they do. When folks step up to try and regulate the industry, the critics just repeat their opposition to drilling oil, leaving the debate about oil regulation to the proponents.

We are faced with the reality of a reduced force in Iraq, for whatever purpose, with the promise of 'all troops out by the end of 2011'. How that's managed has consequence which can't be adequately addressed by just repeating our objections to war.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. 1) it is a good thing that our official forces have been reduced to 50,000

2) it is bullshit to claim that the war is over and that combat missions, whatever that means, have ended. Didn't we hear some very similar bullshitty claims from the prior administration?

We continue to occupy and control Iraq with our military forces. Whatever label has been put on the remaining units, prior to that labelling these same units were 'combat units'. Make of that what you will, I consider it a cosmetic change.

Engage in a little speculation with me. What happens if the Iraqi government suddenly adopts a very pro-Iranian stance that includes re-nationalization of their oil resources from foreign control? How fast will our non-combat units be redesignated as combat units and joined by their comrades based nearby?

[bigtree]

22. in my view

. . . there have been several opportunities for this Democratic administration to point to tragic developments and opportunistic events in Iraq as a reason to continue the occupation unabated. From what I've seen so far, this administration is determined to end the occupation without any significant regard to the faltering or declining political or 'security' landscape there. The President can see well that Iraq is a mess, yet, he's still determined to follow through on his draw down plan. I don't think he's going to reverse all of that. At any rate, this historically huge transition can't be turned around on a dime.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. I sincerely hope you are right, but I am a pessimist.

The last time anything similar happened it required a most unusual congress to cut the purse strings in order to actually end the war. We do not have a congress the even remotely resembles the one that ended the vietnam war. Presidents shy away from this sort of step, especially if they are up for re-election. Perhaps a second Obama administration could do this, but not this one.

[zipplewrath]

31. They are a bit trapped

My biggest concern is that basically another civil war breaks out, you have one set of Iraqis begging us to stay and help them stablize a government, and you have the other ones claiming that we are staying to force a western government on Iraq. We won't be able to get out, and we won't be able to pick sides. I'd rather he cut and run now why we have the chance.

[bigtree]

33. me too

. . .but, perversely, I have faith that this is a political withdrawal by the President, rather than a strictly tactical decision based on the 'situation on the ground'. In that political estimation, I think the President has had just about enough of U.S. involvement there and is willing to completely 'cut and run' at the earliest political opportunity.

[zipplewrath]

36. It better be soon

They still haven't formed a government and the situation is supposedly getting worse, and more violent, not better. His political ability to leave will decrease, not increase, if that happens.

[EFerrari]

24. You mean besides their uniforms, tanks and weapons?

[Karenina]

26. Does a death yesterday count?

:shrug:

[jgraz]

29. Of course not, the war is clearly over.

:sarcasm:

In seriousness, the lack of respect shown on this board for the remaining troops is sickening. All just to parrot an administration talking point. :puke:

[bigtree]

37. and you are the one who decides who's sincere in their beliefs

. . . and who's shilling for the administration? Pathetic. Who do you speak for?

[jgraz]

44. I'm sorry. I'm sure you're a sincere, independent thinker

who just happens to believe exactly what the administration tells him with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

[bigtree]

45. I actually asked for evidence on this thread after outlining just what I've understood from reports

. . . and other accounts I've read, listened to, and watched.

Knowing nothing at all of actual value or significance about what I think or believe, you appear to be under the delusion that you should be the authority on everything - including me. Good luck with that.

[jgraz]

46. Which is why you immediately branded any complaints "opportunistic and misinformed".

You were just asking questions. And maybe writing them on a blackboard.

[bigtree]

48. I didn't say 'any complaints'

. . .or mean 'any complaints'.

Again, I outlined what I understood the troops' role and duty was, and I asked if anyone had evidence that I'd like to see it. I'd still like to see evidence that the troops in Iraq are acting outside of what the President outlined as their mission, if that is, in fact, occurring. I don't believe it is. You can get all of that from the op if you put aside your bias toward me as you read through it.

[bigtree]

32. I'm not just asking if Iraq is still dangerous

. . . or if our troops are still in harms way. I believe they are still in danger (and dangerous).

What I'm trying to get at is the insistence by critics of the President that nothing has changed in our offensive military posture in Iraq but the name-designation of the troops. If there's anything near to the picture painted by folks insisting that our troops are engaged in anything more than a fraction of the forces 'advising' and providing technical assistance to the Iraqis on some of their patrols and operations than I want to know about it.

To me, it appears that the President was true to his word that 'combat operations have ended' for our forces (notwithstanding the continued risk faced by these advisers embedded with the Iraqi forces).

[seattleblue]

50. I gave you the posts from the U.S. army in #8

that shows we are still in combat. But you chose to ignore it.

[bigtree]

51. I didn't ignore them

I'm aware of the incidents (those links opened to pages which had headings, but no articles), but I'm not seeing where they indicate that they were the result of U.S. combat operations. Maybe you'd like to flesh that out for me.

[seattleblue]

53. The are army press releases of combat operations

which occurred yesterday and today. What is not to understand?

[bigtree]

55. I've read the news reports elsewhere but I just can't see what you're linking to

The page opens and there's the header info and links at the bottom, but nothing on the page. I just want to see what you're looking at before commenting on it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Wasn't that due to wounds sustained before the pullout?

[seattleblue]

49. No.

http://www.usf-iraq.com/news/press-releases/us-service-member-killed-in-southern-iraq

[bigtree]

52. I can't see an article on that page

can you cut and paste the meat of it?

[seattleblue]

54. Not sure what you mean by 'article'. It is an army press release.

[bigtree]

57. just cut and paste what you're looking at

for some reason ' the release' won't open or reveal itself on the page which opened for me.

[seattleblue]

62. Okay here is what I got. Both of them.

RELEASE No. 20100822-01
Aug. 22, 2010

CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE BASRA, Iraq – A United States Forces – Iraq Soldier was killed today in Basra province while conducting operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.

The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin.

The incident is under investigation.

-30-

Press Release 20100823-01
Aug. 23, 2010

BAGHDAD – Security team members of an ISF joint patrol killed a suspected Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) member and one criminal associate during a joint security operation conducted Sunday.

In East Mosul, ISF and U.S. advisors searched a building for a suspected AQI member who allegedly has close ties to AQI senior leadership.

As the security force moved toward the targeted building an individual on the roof fired at the security force. The ISF engaged the individual, killing him.

An associate of the gunmen attempted to harm members of the security team and was fatally wounded. The security force medic immediately provided the suspect emergency care, but was unable to resuscitate him. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Because both suspects engaged in hostile acts towards the security force, the ISF was within its authority to escalate force in a manner compliant with the rules of engagement to preserve the lives of ISF members and others.

The information and evidence gathered at the scene led Iraqi forces to identify and arrest three AQI criminal associates of the warranted individual.

All joint operations are pursuant to a warrant issued by an Iraqi judge.

Iraqi and U.S. advisors conduct joint operations in accordance with the Security Agreement and in coordination with the Iraqi government to target terrorists seeking to disrupt the security and stability of Iraq.

-30-

[bigtree]

66. the second one is certainly what I'm looking for

It's much appreciated.

It's definitely combat and well promoted by the ISF. I'm still not clear just what role the U.S. 'adviser' played in the operation, although I'm not going to try and diminish the complicity of the U.S. operative in whatever occurred.

[L0oniX]

30. The truth has been made illegal so how would anyone know the real story?

[bigtree]

39. it is very hard to determine the 'truth' in these operations

. . . by reading the many reports and commentary.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Not really as long as we have either/or a major troop presence or a mercenary footprint

we are in a war no matter what they choose to label it or organize it.

Hell, they tell you straight up that there will be embedded "training" and running counter-terror operations and you're still confused and asking for 'proof' that no one can provide and to be honest I'm not sure what you want there to be 'proof' of because you are happy to exempt the same stuff we were doing prior to the "drawdown". Nor do you even want to address the mercenaries like they don't count.

Sounds like you're caught up in some level of cognitive dissonance to me.

[bigtree]

67. I'm not just going to conflate everything

. . . into one U.S. sucks basket. Why are you adverse to being precise about what's occurring there?

[TheKentuckian]

69. I'm not capable of being precise because there is no free flow of information

and the whole thing is based on lies and access to resources.

Under the circumstances I am being as accurate as I can be.

You can better ask the administration the same question and then start drilling down.

[Better Believe It]

34. Revealing any classified information on U.S. troops movements and activity is illegal unless

that information is released by the federal government.

The Pentagon claims that making such information public endangers the troops and may prosecute anyone who posts classified information on troops movements and activities on DU or other internet discussion boards.

So, if we could answer your question, do you think we should?

Perhaps such information can be passed on to Wikileaks unless they are successfuly prosecuted and shut down by the government.

[The Straight Story]

42. Why yes, yes I do. Talked to my son who is heading there and asked him about it

They will still be in combat actions - but under the authority of Iraqi forces instead of our own.

In other words, our troops will be under the direction of the Iraqi's assisting them in combat operations - but 'WE' won't be directing those operations so we can say 'WE' ceased combat ops.

[readmoreoften]

64. And of course we will be under the authority of the Iraqis who are under our authority.

:eyes:

Anyone who thinks the US military is taking orders from Iraqis is out their mfkin mind. We give them the orders, they give our troops the orders. Actually, what I'm hearing is way more disconcerting than even this.

My thoughts go out to your son.

[Ted_White]

47. Obama is still using for hired mercenaries. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be able

to draw down on the troop as he did.

[Barack2theFuture]

56. The soldier who died yesterday didn't have pneumonia

[bigtree]

58. casualties in Iraq don't necessarily mean that combat operations are continuing

. . . outside of the President's definition of the 'end of combat operations.'

Instead of the snark, how about showing me how this death indicates that the President misstated the 'end of combat operations'.

[Barack2theFuture]

59. when an armed enemy force engages an armed unit of 'us,'

that is combat, unless of course you work in a PR capacity in Washington DC. Then you can redefine words at will, and rely on your operatives to disseminate them as though they still meant something.

[bigtree]

65. 'us' doesn't look to be initiating or organizing any combat missions

There are Iraqi missions where U.S. troops are embedded as advisers and technicians. I do think that it does take some twisting of language and definition to claim (as some critics of the administration do), that the 'combat' role of these troops hasn't changed significantly from the U.S. initiated raids and bombings of communities in Iraq. That's what some folks are insisting, though. In my view, these troops haven't been engaged in any significant 'combat' since Bush left office.

Iraq is still a dangerous place. The troops there have a responsibility to defend themselves and are tasked with providing security for themselves and the diplomats and aid workers our government has tasked to carry out the next phase of U.S. involvement there. That mission may well involve engagements with insurgent and hostile forces and individuals bent on harming U.S. targets. But, I think you know what I'm getting at. The mission of our forces has changed from a primarily offensive one (officially with the President's order) to a defensive operation which keeps our troops safe as they work toward getting 'all troops out by 2011'.

Words certainly have meaning, but not just for the administration. I believe that even critics of the occupation have a responsibility to correctly define just what our troops are still doing there. I'm seeing a muddle of opinion about what our forces are doing, without much actual evidence (and of course they assume the worst scenarios). I'm interested in the actual facts of our mission there; both as defined by the administration and the military, and as the evidence specifically demonstrates.

[Barack2theFuture]

72. The actual facts of our mission involve combat.

combat: –noun
3. Military . active, armed fighting with enemy forces.

Combat is not limited to offense or defense or initiation or seeking or wanting to fight.

When an armed American soldier is killed by armed enemy forces in a firefight, that is combat.

You (and the military and the White House) are playing nonsensical word games.

[bigtree]

73. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9007880

[readmoreoften]

61. Yes. From what the soldiers at Fort Hood are telling me they're being trained to do.

It's called deductive reasoning. It's what the grown-ups do.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

70. And this is pefectly consistent with what he said during the campaign.

As usual, most of the responses to this thoughtful post are people who would rather spout slogans and spit on progress.

[unhappycamper]

71. From icasualties.org:

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx

8-22-2010 US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not yet reported 0 Hostile - hostile fire Basra Basra

Hostile fire sure sounds like combat. :eyes:

[Hekate]

74. Kick. Too late to rec. TY for this perspective. There are still over 35,000 troops in Japan, btw.

Seems to be a habit with us, doesn't it? At any rate, fwiw, we haven't been in a shooting war with Japan since 1945.

Hekate