Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (81458)	8/23/2010 12:09:00 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

original.antiwar.com That statement was in line with the pledge he had made on Feb. 27, 2009, when he said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” --- This dead soldier will be very glad to hear our combat ended a week ago. === news.antiwar.com With War ‘Over,’ US Soldier Killed in Iraq ‘Operations’ Military Declines Further Details by Jason Ditz, August 22, 2010 Email This \| Print This \| Share This \| Antiwar Forum With the Obama Administration still reveling in its “victory” in Iraq and media outlets still cheerfully reporting last week’s formal “end” to the Iraq War, another US soldier has been killed in Iraq. The killing is a difficult one to reconcile with the narrative, as the soldier was killed when a rocket was fired at him. He was “on operations” in the Basra Province, but military officials declined to provide further details on exactly what he was doing. But officials had been saying all along that, despite renaming the 52,000-plus US troops “non-combat” troops they would continue to go on missions that involved combat. They just wouldn’t call it combat. Of course all we can do is speculate at this point, given the lack of information. But it seems that if he was killed in some non-combat circumstance the details would have been released immediately, if only to make the enemy look bad.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (81458)	8/23/2010 12:15:53 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Now the Army Times story is going out. === rawstory.com US combat brigades still in Iraq: report By Daniel Tencer Sunday, August 22nd, 2010 -- 2:49 pm The US military and the Obama administration loudly trumpeted the withdrawal of the "last combat brigade" from Iraq last week, but news reports suggest the move is purely semantic: The combat brigades are still there, but under a different name. The Army Times reported on Saturday that the US still has seven combat brigades inside Iraq, but they have been renamed "advise and assist brigades." The name change will reportedly change little in terms of the duties the brigades carry out: The Army selected brigade combat teams as the unit upon which to build advisory brigades partly because they would be able to retain their inherent capability to conduct offensive and defensive operations, according to the Army’s security force assistance field manual, which came out in May 2009. This way, the brigade can shift the bulk of its operational focus from security force assistance to combat operations if necessary. In Sunday's Washington Post, Kenneth M. Pollack argues that the claim there are no more US combat troops in Iraq is "not even close." Of the roughly 50,000 American military personnel who remain in Iraq, the majority are still combat troops -- they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called "brigade combat teams" and instead will be called "advisory and assistance brigades." But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal. Story continues below... American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as "advisers." American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full "battle rattle" and ready for a fight. Pollack's point was proven Sunday when a US soldier was killed near Basra, the first US troop death since the "withdrawal of combat troops" took place. On Friday, US House representative and noted Iraq war opponent Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) slammed the withdrawal announcement as an Orwellian "lie." Who is in charge of our operations in Iraq, now? George Orwell? A war based on lies continues to be a war based on lies. Today, we have a war that is not a war, with combat troops who are not combat troops. In 2003, President Bush said ' Mission Accomplished.' In 2010, the White House says combat operations are over in Iraq, but will leave 50,000 troops, many of whom will inevitably be involved in combat-related activities. The US military presence in Iraq may continue long after the end of 2011, when all American forces are supposed to depart under a security agreement. Top military leaders in both countries acknowledge Iraq still may need help from the US armed forces after 2011. "We're obviously open to that discussion," US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week. "But that initiative will have to come from the Iraqis." Iraq's top military officer told AFP last week that American forces may be needed for another decade. A future accord with Iraq might include continued air patrols with US F-16s, as officials admit Baghdad's air force is a long way from being able to fend off attacks from fighter jets. To make up for a scaled back US military force, Washington meanwhile plans to rely on large numbers of private security contractors, US officials said Thursday. The State Department said it will double the number of contractors it employs in Iraq to about 7,000. -- With a report from AFP