Kind of.
From what I've read, nothing is different. We've just stopped using the word "combat." We are calling the soldiers that remain, "advisers." All 50,000 of them.
How are we supposed to feel about this? How is this any different from, "Mission Accomplished?"
We can hope that our active combat role is not going to recur...
Until all troops are out it's not over.
Until all troops are out it's not over.
And even then ...
Until all troops are out it's not over.
Is this a fair definition? Are we still participating in World War II, given our troops in Germany and Japan?
Dr.Ghastly wrote:Until all troops are out it's not over.
Is this a fair definition? Are we still participating in World War II, given our troops in Germany and Japan?
I'm not sure it's ever going to actually be "over" but it's probably worth noting that no one is shooting RPG's or mortars at our troops in Okinawa or Frankfurt. There also aren't a lot of IED attacks in Munich either! 
From what I read, the last dedicated combat units moved to Kuwait. If that's true, then yeah, just having advisers does not mean we are at war, because they are not set up to conduct combat operations.
From what I read, the last dedicated combat units moved to Kuwait. If that's true, then yeah, just having advisers does not mean we are at war, because they are not set up to conduct combat operations.
Actually they are set up for combat operations. But only, you know, if the Iraqi's ask for help, which I'm sure they won't do (wink wink, nudge nudge). And the special forces will apparently continue to help whether asked or not.
That presence is far from over. Scatterings of troops still await departure, and some 50,000 will stay another year in what is designated as a noncombat role. They will carry weapons to defend themselves and accompany Iraqi troops on missions (but only if asked). Special forces will continue to help Iraqis hunt for terrorists.
No, Lobster's right. This is a PR and semantics game, little else.
If you like. The fact that they will be operating with Iraqi Army units rather than independently seems to me to be a big change.
If you like. The fact that they will be operating with Iraqi Army units rather than independently seems to me to be a big change.
We've been doing that all along. Theoretically of course. There's also the fact that we'll be adding to our mercenary presence there - this time officially under the control of the State Department.
I'm not saying we should get out completely. I'm not saying we should stay. All I'm saying is that this is exactly what Lobster called it - a PR stunt just as bad as "Mission Accomplished".
Robear, you need to remember that it is completely unreasonable to expect our soldiers there to stop firing at insurgents and stop dropping bombs on safehouses simply because a man state-side said we're not calling it combat anymore. That's not a matter of politics and I don't fault our guys for it, it's simply a reality of war. If our guys are still dealing with the realities of war, then there's still a war.
It's good that we're shifting responsibility to Iraqi forces as that's what needs to happen before we can even think about getting out, so I don't want to diminish that. Calling that an "end to combat operations" is dishonest and it does diminish it.
All I'm saying is that this is exactly what Lobster called it - a PR stunt just as bad as "Mission Accomplished".
A giant, asinine banner is substantially different from a planned major troop movement.
I think this is a valid milestone in the timetable. Anytime you hit a milestone whether it be something as small as software implementation project or something as big as a war, you communicate the fact that that the milestone has been reached to your stakeholders. That is all I see occuring here. Not sure why it has to be any deeper or more conspiratorial than that.
I don't see these announcements in the same light as the Mission Accomplished PR fiasco, that ended up giving the false expectation that combat operations were over and seemed to gloss over the level of investment in nation building that would be necessary.
I think the current military leadership has been pretty clear that while this milestone would represent a significant change in our role and presence within the region, they plan to maintain some level of troops.
I don't see these announcements in the same light as the Mission Accomplished PR fiasco, that ended up giving the false expectation that combat operations were over and seemed to gloss over the level of investment in nation building that would be necessary.
Unless civil war breaks out again and more troops have to be rushed back in to help quell the disorder. Or, frankly, unless U.S. troops start dying. To the public, if U.S. soldiers are shooting off guns and getting shot or blown up, you've got combat operations.
Irongut wrote:I don't see these announcements in the same light as the Mission Accomplished PR fiasco, that ended up giving the false expectation that combat operations were over and seemed to gloss over the level of investment in nation building that would be necessary.
Unless civil war breaks out again and more troops have to be rushed back in to help quell the disorder. Or, frankly, unless U.S. troops start dying. To the public, if U.S. soldiers are shooting off guns and getting shot or blown up, you've got combat operations.
I don't know. Even if the country goes to hell in a bigger way, I doubt the American public has the stomach to send troops in to stop it. At this point, I think we'd wash our hands of it and walk away.
All I'm saying is that this is exactly what Lobster called it - a PR stunt just as bad as "Mission Accomplished".A giant, asinine banner is substantially different from a planned major troop movement.
Exactly what this major troop movement is has not been adequately explained to me. Reaper, I typically trust your judgment on this kind of thing. Could you explain to me just what's going on? What's different?
I don't dispute that ending combat operations is a major milestone. My problem is that I feel like they're just changing how they use the word "combat" without anything different on the ground. If that's the case, then I'm kind of insulted that the Obama administration would think I'd fall for that.
Exactly what this major troop movement is has not been adequately explained to me.
The exit of combat troops and the draw down to 50,000 troops in Iraq. Obama announced the plan back in February, so this shouldn't be a shocker to anyone. His plan is that the remaining troops will leave Iraq by 2011 to fulfill his campaign promise. Besides that we have to have all our troops out of Iraq by 2012 based on a military pact we made with Iraq in 2009.
LobsterMobster wrote:Exactly what this major troop movement is has not been adequately explained to me.
The exit of combat troops and the draw down to 50,000 troops in Iraq. Obama announced the plan back in February, so this shouldn't be a shocker to anyone. His plan is that the remaining troops will leave Iraq by 2011 to fulfill his campaign promise. Besides that we have to have all our troops out of Iraq by 2012 based on a military pact we made with Iraq in 2009.
OK, fair enough. Does "troops" include "advisers" and "mercenaries?"
The combat troops left. These are the fighting forces. Supporting troops are, and have been, defined as support roles. Logistics, trucks, supply, medical, etc. Anything that is not explicitly combat (Infantry, Striker, Artillery, etc). It is a signifigant milestone and not a smoke screen, or a name change.
Yes, every US Soldier can fire an M16. But if the Admins and Medical types are fighting someone, well, let's just say there'd be a siginifigant increase in the price of ammo ;P
We'll still have special forces in Iraq. Since there is effectively no Iraqi Air Force, our helicopters and planes will still be there flying in support of Iraqi troops and their American advisers. I think we'll also be providing logistical support to the Iraqi military. That's been one of their weak points although I don't know if it still is.
Robear, you need to remember that it is completely unreasonable to expect our soldiers there to stop firing at insurgents and stop dropping bombs on safehouses simply because a man state-side said we're not calling it combat anymore. That's not a matter of politics and I don't fault our guys for it, it's simply a reality of war. If our guys are still dealing with the realities of war, then there's still a war.
That's not "combat operations", though, which has a particular meaning. I'm not being pedantic when I say that that role is different from "advise and assist". The troops in place now have been trained on police operations, training police and military, and other similar roles. Even though they can indeed defend themselves, the fact is that their mission is *not* to conduct combat operations, it's to assist the Iraqis in organizing and learning how to do it themselves. By shifting from combat operations to advise and assist, we lose capability in one area, but gain it in another. (For example, the 4th Brigade of the Third Infantry used to be a tank-heavy combat brigade. Now since February it has converted to light infantry - advisors don't need tanks - and was trained as trainers and policemen. It replaces a larger unit of the 82nd Airborne which was conducting combat operations, and they in turn replaced a larger unit of US Marines, also in the combat role. So the training, equipment, mission and doctrine are all different from the combat units being replaced. This is true for each of the six or so remaining brigades, as I understand it.)
By your definitions, guys, there is no US military presence which is not "conducting combat operations" by virtue of having a rifle issued to each cook and clerk. And yet the differences between peace-keeping, advisory roles like KFOR and the actual combat operations (say, the US Marine Corps at Fallujah) are clear.
I'm not saying they will never be in combat. They will be every day as they partially man checkpoints, ride along with Iraqi patrols and the like. I'm saying that "combat operations" means that the brigade, division or whatever is geared towards operating independently or with allies with bringing the fight to the enemy as the principal tactical goal, and with strategic goals like seizing ground, eradicating enemy formations, constant patrolling and other actions. We are no longer in that business in Iraq. If there's a better phrase to describe it, that's fine, but what Bush declared wa the end of "major combat operations" when they actually continued and escalated. That's not happening now. (If it does escalate again, you'll see us eventually put new rules and units in place, but you'll also see a rise in our losses until we bunker up and wait for the reinforcements.)
Combat operations process is undertaken by armed forces during military campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements to facilitate the setting of objectives, direction of combat, and assessment of the operation plan's success.The basic model of the combat operations process includes five phases[1] that seek to acquire targets and objectives, allocate and orient appropriate forces for successful engagement of the enemy, make decisions about doctrinal approach to the engagement, execute the plan by engaging in combat, and conduct post-combat intelligence assessment of the success or failure of the operation's plan.[2]
References
1. ^ Orr, Major George E (1983). Combat operations C3I: fundamentals and interactions. Maxwell Air Force Base: Airpower Research Institute. p. p. 35.
2. ^ Vego, Milan (2007). "Chapter 10: Operational Art and Doctrine". in ed. McIvor, Anthony D. Rethinking the Principles of War. Naval Institute Press. p. p. 174. ISBN 1591144825. http://books.google.com/books?id=zvU....
Given the military's nomenclature, when they say "end of combat operations", the above is what they are referring to. It in no way means that combat will never happen. It means that the focus of the units involved is no longer in conducting combat operations towards military goals set by US commanders.
Make sense? Again, I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I believe that there is indeed a large shift in focus for the forces remaining in Iraq, and I don't want to see the change ignored because people don't believe it's possible for a military unit to be tasked with the roles of training and advising instead of putting lead down-range.
The question, which -- given that I am a filthy skimmer, may have already been answered -- is what type of savings reduced debt expense will the US see from this move?
Ah, I remember 7 years ago like it was yesterday:
In an announcement marking a major victory in America's ongoing war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared Thursday that "major combat activity" has ended in Afghanistan.
What we've had since 2003 in Afghanistan is stability operations and reconstruction. Why do people still keep calling it a war? Was it not a war for a while, and then was it a war again?
Long live the occupation!
I get Robear's point that the military may use the term combat operations in a very specific way, but Presidents don't operate in the military world. It's a matter of politics, and I expect that this could well come back and bite him in the ass as the months go buy unless things go very, very well in Iraq. I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it. Because Rumsfeld and Bush will be tagged with their overeager pronouncements for the rest of time.
If things blow up there - if the Iraqis are not really ready to go it alone - it *should* bite him in the ass. But I don't think that we should pretend that these units are trained and equipped and supported to (for example) take back a large city from rebels, or run continuous combat missions for weeks on end. Supply alone is going to be a bear if things go pear-shaped.
If the President and his military team were willing to just *pretend* that things are stable enough to declare that we've shifted function, he deserves to be nailed to the wall. That's what happened with Bush - wishful thinking was put before reality. But from all indications I've been able to find, these units have been trained, equipped and tasked for supporting Iraqi operations, not for conducting an active conflict independent of them. Just think about how much materiel is required for even a few days of continuous combat operations, and the requisite convoys, the protection of them coming from Kuwait... If conditions are back to 2005 or 2007, then we will see very quickly that this is a lie.
Put another way, if you think this is a fake, bear in mind that our troops are *more* exposed now than ever before. Casualties will soar and they will quickly be restricted to their bases while we scramble to set up the old supply and protection infrastructure again, even if only to extract them safely. It'll be impossible to hide or spin troop movements of that size. So keep your eyes on the region.
Until that happens, I'm reading this as the usual anti-Obama spin in an election year.
How can it be "anti-Obama spin" when it doesn't fit with the republican's messaging on the war? They're the ones who will declare victory in Iraq this fall if nothing bad happens. They're in a pretty good place in that respect.
The question, which -- given that I am a filthy skimmer, may have already been answered -- is what type of
savingsreduced debt expense will the US see from this move?
Zero. Any reduction in operational costs in Iraq are being more than offset by increase of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, it's likely that we'll be spending more money moving forward simply because it's much more expensive to move supplies to and through Afghanistan.
How can it be "anti-Obama spin" when it doesn't fit with the republican's messaging on the war? They're the ones who will declare victory in Iraq this fall if nothing bad happens. They're in a pretty good place in that respect.
Obama is catching it from both sides. In this case a lot of criticism is coming from the anti-war left, and they are really unhappy with Obama for continuing the war in Afghanistan, as well as leaving *any* troops in Iraq. And the Republicans are angry that he's trying to "take credit for Bush's win". But "the war's not over yet, it's just being concealed" meme seems to be from the left.
I am reminded of Mr. Miagi from Karate Kid saying "be on right side of road or left side of road, but be in middle and *squash* rike bug".
Despite all of the rhetoric, Obama is and has always been a center right politician. In the 1950's, he would have been right at home in the Eisenhower administration (provided he were white). Far Left Democrats were upset because he wasn't further Left because they assumed his skin color would determine his politics. Far Right Republicans are upset because they are insane.
Pages