Obama Campaign Promise Kept: Last of the combat troops leave Iraq

[Political Tiger]

Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq
"Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months."



Last of the "combat" troops leave Iraq; peacekeepers stay behind

Updated: Friday, August 20th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

The last of American combat troops are leaving Iraq, and journalists on the ground have been documenting the departure of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. "Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home," reported the Associated Press. "Iraq in the rear-view mirror; Final combat brigade exits through a landscape littered with memories," said the Los Angeles Times. And "U.S. mission in Iraq switches from combat to assist," said the report from Reuters.

It's important to note here that the description "combat brigade" is critical. About 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq as a transitional force.

Obama described what those remaining troops will be doing in a speech on Aug. 2, 2010: "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," he said. "And 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. There are still those with bombs and bullets who will try to stop Iraq"s progress. And 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."

This is consistent with Obama's promises from the campaign, when he emphasized removing combat troops but keeping other types of troops. Here's what Obama said at debate on Jan. 15, 2008: "We are going to have to protect our embassy. Were going to have to protect our civilians. We"re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. ... but it is not going to be engaged in a war, and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that George Bush seems to be intent on."

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

[Aramchek]

1. Ding!

[derby378]

2. But the war isn't over yet...

Get the remaining 50,000 troops and 7,000 mercs out of Iraq, and then it's over.

[stevenleser]

21. Based on what?

What are those troops doing that makes you think the war is not over?

[derby378]

29. There's stll 50,000 troops in Iraq...

...and as long as they stay in Iraq, the occupation continues.

[backscatter712]

3. I'll give him credit where credit's due.

We still have 50,000 troops in Iraq, but we used to have 130,000+ troops there. The violence, while still flaring from time to time, has decreased significantly.

I hesitate to declare the war over, but I think the progress Obama's made in winding that clusterfuck down is tremendous.

[derby378]

4. This is true...

...and despite that treaty Bush signed with Iraq in 2008, I doubt he would have moved as many troops out of Iraq as Obama did were he to somehow get a third term.

[mikelgb]

5. this has been posted, and it is still not true

peacekeepers my ass

[Phlem]

6. What did Dennis K. say?

You can't be in and out of war at the same time.

-p

[Political Tiger]

7. So I guess this means we are still at war with Japan, Germany and Korea.

"Beam me up!" -Dennis K

[frylock]

9. how many IEDs killed people in germany, japan, and korea this month?

[ProSense]

10. What do American troops have to do with IEDs?

This is conflating the violence in Iraq with an imaginary U.S. war that isn't ongoing.

[frylock]

12. what does iraq have to do with germany, japan, and korea?

wouldn't vietnam be a more apt comparison? how many "advise and assist brigades" were left behind in vietnam?

[ProSense]

13. "how many 'advise and assist brigades' were left behind in vietnam?"

Why don't you tell me?

[frylock]

16. you already know the answer

[seattleblue]

20. Are we in those countries as occupiers?

[stevenleser]

22. No, and we aren't occupiers in Iraq anymore either.

Since you made the assertion, the burden is on you to prove that we are.

[seattleblue]

25. When citizens try and kill you on a regular basis you are a occupier.

I don't see that happening in Germany or Japan. But if you want to put your head in the sand and say "I see no more war" go ahead. It is better than meds to get you thru the day I'm sure.

[Political Tiger]

31. LOL!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[ProSense]

8. "You can't be in and out of war at the same time." The troops who left

aren't in and out. They're out. That was the promise, to remove the combat brigades.

Iraq is no longer a war. We haven't been at war in Iraq for a long time now. It's an occupation. Is Kucinich saying that we're at war in Iraq?

[Phlem]

11. this is what I meant

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8978163

[Phlem]

14. And to reiterate

If you believe the war is over then I've got F8cking bridge to sell you.

Didn't we have mission accomplished a while back?

Have we no learned 1 goddamn thing?

I'm not saying Dennis is right, I'm just saying rub a few more brain cells together!

-p

[ProSense]

15. Let me reiterate:

The war is over and Kucinich has to come to grips with the fact that it is.

There is no war in Iraq. There are 50,000 U.S. troops still occupying the country, but they are not fighting a war.

President Obama stayed true to his word and removed all combat brigades.

[Phlem]

17. Wow

new to politics much?

OK your the winner, feel better.

I'm done with this.

peace

-p

[ProSense]

18. "OK your the winner, feel better."

Were we playing a game?

[seattleblue]

24. You are playing the game and everyone knows it.

[ProSense]

28. No, whatever "the game" is, I'm not playing.

Who is everyone?

[seattleblue]

32. Everyone are all the people who know that leaving 50,000 combat troops in Iraq

means that we are still at war. Just because there name was magically changed from combat to trainers does not mean they will not be shot at or they will not shoot at people. Would you support a move to remove their combat pay supplement because now they are no longer in combat?

[stevenleser]

23. I would argue we aren't occupying the country either. Occupying implies that we somehow control

the government or security apparatus. We dont control either in Iraq.

[ProSense]

19. Video:

Iraqis react to US troop withdrawal

[LAGC]

30. What I got out of that video was...

That Iraqi forces may not be ready to fully take-over until 2020.

That means those 50,000 "unactive" "non-combat" troops may very well be seeing some action.

[Stoic]

26. We don't have "combat" troops anymore, they're "trainers"

And those tens of thousands of mercenaries...ooops, private security personnel (being paid by the State Department under private contract), just ignore them.

[ProSense]

27. Actually, here is what the WH said:

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.

link

This is exactly what the OP points out.

There really is no need to spin the information coming out of the WH is to try to claim that the President is saying something different from what he actually said.