US combat role in Iraq set to end on schedule, says Barack Obama

[FR7 Baptist]

Barack Obama declared today that he is on the brink of fulfilling a campaign promise to end US combat operations in Iraq – seven years after his predecessor's triumphalist pronouncement that the war was won and the mission accomplished.

But the president warned that the plan to turn over military responsibility to the Iraqi government by the end of this month would not mean an end to the conflict or to US casualties in what he once called a "dumb war".

Amid increasing doubts over the growing war in Afghanistan, Obama sought to shift attention to what the administration is heralding as the success of its strategy to pull troops away from the frontline in Iraq.

"As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. I made it clear that by August 31, America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing – as promised and on schedule," Obama told the Disabled American Veterans convention in Atlanta.

Read More

This is good news that we are winding down operations in Iraq. By the end of next year, there will be no more U.S. troops in Iraq when the transitional force is removed.

 

[rbell]

Agreed...ready to see more soldiers come home.

Two disturbing things, though...

1. Obama takes sole credit for finishing the job. Baloney.
2. We're in a bigger mess in Afghanistan now than we ever were in Iraq. With the engagement rules as they are, we can not, and will not ever, win that conflict. So, what do we do? Fight to win? Or send more human ammo?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Agreed...ready to see more soldiers come home.

Two disturbing things, though...

1. Obama takes sole credit for finishing the job. Baloney.
2. We're in a bigger mess in Afghanistan now than we ever were in Iraq. With the engagement rules as they are, we can not, and will not ever, win that conflict. So, what do we do? Fight to win? Or send more human ammo?

or will the President declare "victory" and leave.

 

[Don]

2. We're in a bigger mess in Afghanistan now than we ever were in Iraq. With the engagement rules as they are, we can not, and will not ever, win that conflict. So, what do we do? Fight to win? Or send more human ammo?

Which rules of engagement are you referencing? McChrystal's, or Petraeus' new revision?

 

[carpro]

The George W. Bush plan for prosecuting the war and disengaging continues to work well and on schedule.

 

[rbell]

Which rules of engagement are you referencing? McChrystal's, or Petraeus' new revision?

To be honest, I don't think we know what rules we're fighting under...

 

[Don]

We're still fighting under the ROE put out by McChrystal. Petraeus is working on (may have already sent out?) revisions to commanders who interpreted McChrystal's ROE in such a manner as to make them too restrictive.

 

[rbell]

We're still fighting under the ROE put out by McChrystal. Petraeus is working on (may have already sent out?) revisions to commanders who interpreted McChrystal's ROE in such a manner as to make them too restrictive.

We've been fighting under too-restrictive ROE since Korea...or at least Vietnam.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

We've been fighting under too-restrictive ROE since Korea...or at least Vietnam.

I mean this as a serious question- no hidden agenda or anything. I'm not familiar with the ROE. What is too restrictive about the current ROE?

 

[rbell]

I mean this as a serious question- no hidden agenda or anything. I'm not familiar with the ROE. What is too restrictive about the current ROE?

We no longer fight wars to win.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I mean this as a serious question- no hidden agenda or anything. I'm not familiar with the ROE. What is too restrictive about the current ROE?

Basically the ROE are that you must get permission in a situation to fire your weapon unless you are fired upon. There are certain times that on going out you are told you are in free fire zone which basically means that any human presence is viewed as an enemy combatant and is a target.

The ROE also apply to certain places that cannot be violated such as a mosque or where there are a large number of non-combatants (ie women and children).

In Viet Nam, we were not allowed to cross a borde such as in North Viet Nam or Laos or Cambodia unless given specific orders. That allowed the North Viet Namese army a sanctuary. I can imagine that the same status is given when an enemy force goes into Pakistan. These rules were designed to keep a localized war from becoming much larger. This is what happened when General MacArthur wanted to expand the Korean War into China. President Truman would not let him. (There was a lot more to their disagreement but this was basically the charge that was allowed to be printed)