Barack Obama ends the war in Iraq. 'Now it's time to turn the page'

[Dan T.]

But its not semantics to the Soldiers on the ground, you ever hear of a CLP (Combat Logistics Patrol) the intent of the CLP is to deliver supplies, personnel, or any other thing that must move by MSR to another FOB, it only became "Combat" when you hit an IED or the enemy sprung an ambush. So by your example they were just in a dangerous place and not in combat. How about the two Soldiers who were standing outside the Division HQ when "Rocket Man" decided to drop a couple of 120mm rockets a few hundred meters from them, both died. Tell their families they were not in combat. Anytime a Soldier is in harms way they are in a Combat situation. Semantics my ass, if you don't think this stuff can and will still happen you just don't have a clue.

Reread what I wrote. It agreed with everything you just said. My point was that everybody understands that those troops will still face combat situations and that Iraq remains a dangerous place, but the primary mission of those troops will not be combat. Do you agree with that?

[ardowling]

Reread what I wrote. It agreed with everything you just said.

That's not the way I read anything you said, so you agree that we are still in "Combat"? If so we are on the same page and I am sorry for misunderstanding you, if not we are very far apart because combat operations such as CLPs (Combat Logistics Patrols) are still going on. So if I understand you even if the potential for combat is out there its only combat if your kicking in doors.

[Redskins Diehard]

Do you really think that this speech is going to make the grunts still in Iraq take off their flak jackets?

Your objections appear overstated.

You know someone makes a statement that they have no problem with a speech except for one point. And it appears that the ONLY acceptable reaction is to give it the two thumbs up.

I think it can change perceptions. Not only for the grunts, but for the American public they serve.

"It was important to make the statement because the statement was important but actually didn't mean anything."

Lets not call it combat anymore, even though that is exactly what it still is.

[Dan T.]

That's not the way I read anything you said, so you agree that we are still in "Combat"? If so we are on the same page and I am sorry for misunderstanding you, if not we are very far apart.

I agree that Iraq remains a dangerous place, and that the 50,000 troops still there will face combat situations. Their primary mission will NOT be to engage in combat though. Using your CLP example, is that primarily a combat objective? Certainly they will fight if fired upon, but do they seek to engage the enemy?

[ardowling]

You know someone makes a statement that they have no problem with a speech except for one point. And it appears that the ONLY acceptable reaction is to give it the two thumbs up.

I think it can change perceptions. Not only for the grunts, but for the American public they serve.

"It was important to make the statement because the statement was important but actually didn't mean anything."

Lets not call it combat anymore, even though that is exactly what it still is.

Its easier for someone say that if they are not the one being shot at, or having a rocket drop into their FOB. These folks will never understand.

[ardowling]

I agree that Iraq remains a dangerous place, and that the 50,000 troops still there will face combat situations. Their primary mission will NOT be to engage in combat though. Using your CLP example, is that primarily a combat objective? Certainly they will fight if fired upon, but do they seek to engage the enemy?

No the primary purpose is to move "stuff" from point A to point B, however the potential for combat remains high due to the fact that there are plenty of bad guys still out there that's why its called a Combat Logistics Patrol and it has been for years no matter who is in charge or what the say about "Mission Accomplished" or "End of Combat Operations".

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree that Iraq remains a dangerous place, and that the 50,000 troops still there will face combat situations. Their primary mission will NOT be to engage in combat though. Using your CLP example, is that primarily a combat objective? Certainly they will fight if fired upon, but do they seek to engage the enemy?

I estimate that I participated in about 40-50 battalion level operations in Iraq. The mission was never to "engage in combat". If they will face combat situations...which they will...then the combat mission is not over.

Someone asked what "problem" the people had with the speech. I gave what I view the problem was and it appears the only acceptable problem is "no problem, sir"

[Dan T.]

Its easier for someone say that if they are not the one being shot at, or having a rocket drop into their FOB. These folks will never understand.

Help me understand. My understanding is that the primary mission of the 50,000 troops in Iraq is NOT combat, even though they may find themselves in combat situations where they will have to fight.

What is incorrect about that?

[ardowling]

Help me understand. My understanding is that the primary mission of the 50,000 troops in Iraq is NOT combat, even though they may find themselves in combat situations where they will have to fight.

What is incorrect about that?

A combat situation is combat its that basic, even its just potential, like RD said a lot of ops start out not with the primary purpose of kicking in doors and such but when the SHTF it doesn't matter what it started out as, its combat and if we have re-named CLPs (COMBAT Logistics Patrols) and yes they are still going on, to something else just to feel like we are not doing combat operations I think you have your answer

[Redskins Diehard]

Help me understand. My understanding is that the primary mission of the 50,000 troops in Iraq is NOT combat, even though they may find themselves in combat situations where they will have to fight.

What is incorrect about that?

Okay, if they find themselves in a combat situation then whatever mission they were on just became a combat mission. Whether it is a raid as part of the CT mission, an advisory patrol with ISF, a logistical convoy, or whatever. That is the point. Any mission where our forces find themselves fighting against an opposing force by definition is combat. A total of about 18 months over there. All with a parachute infantry battalion and we never went out to conduct some "combat". Sometimes we found ourselves in "combat situations". Perhaps the reason why the combat mission is over now is because it never actually existed?

When the president says "combat is over" it carries with it a lot of meaning. In my opinion that particular statement does nothing but provide the title of this article and allows the President to keep a campaign promise. The war is over. He ended it. But of course it isn't. And he didn't. Now it is "only" 50k and they aren't doing "combat missions". Now I do agree with what he is doing. I just wish he would call it what it is. A troop reduction and transition of authority.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Maybe it's just semantics. Nobody holds the illusion that the 50,000 still in Iraq won't face combat situations. It's a strawman argument to suggest that. Obviously, it remains a dangerous place. The primary mission of those troops will not be combat though. I'm surprised that seems to be such a hard concept to grasp for some.

Thank you! I don't understand how this taking so long to sink in.

Of course, if you're a soldier in Iraq you still must be ready to defend yourself 24 hours per day. However, the mission itself is not combat.

I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I don't see what he said in this speech that warrants such an outrage. He delivered a GOOD message the other day. Of course, it would be better if fewer (or no) troops remained in Iraq, but this is moving in the right direction!

Give the guy a break.

Edit: Those who are insisting that, because the chance for combat still exists, this is a combat mission are stretching too much. Anywhere there are US troops at this moment carries a potential for combat or the troops wouldn't be there.

[Redskins Diehard]

Thank you! I don't understand how this taking so long to sink in.

Of course, if you're a soldier in Iraq you still must be ready to defend yourself 24 hours per day. However, the mission itself is not combat.

I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I don't see what he said in this speech that warrants such an outrage. He delivered a GOOD message the other day. Of course, it would be better if fewer (or no) troops remained in Iraq, but this is moving in the right direction!

Give the guy a break.

I personally have not expressed one bit of "outrage" over the speech. Unless of course you version of outrage is anything short of saying I agree with everything he said and how he said it.

The mission itself NEVER was combat. Combat is a characteristic of a mission. That characteristic is still present. And that fact should not be forgotten by the guys over there, or the public back here.

Why don't you go ahead and describe what in your opinion is different between a "combat mission" and a mission that takes place after combat missions are complete? What should have changed for the convoy of fuel trucks that drive from Kuwait to Baghdad? What should change for the convoy of US troops from one base to another? Do you think US forces are providing any degree of security for the camps that they are living in? What do you think was different from August 31st- Septemeber 1st? And try to explain that with a little more detail than "combat mission"

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I personally have not expressed one bit of "outrage" over the speech. Unless of course you version of outrage is anything short of saying I agree with everything he said and how he said it.

Neat...many in here have.

The mission itself NEVER was combat. Combat is a characteristic of a mission. That characteristic is still present. And that fact should not be forgotten by the guys over there, or the public back here.

No one is "forgetting" what is being sacrificed by the soldiers abroad. It's not fair to bring that up just because we're trying to justify something on a message board. And I don't believe for one second the mission in Iraq was NEVER combat when we were squaring off against enemy troops and attempting to occupy cities, etc. Can you explain how that is anything other than combat?

Why don't you go ahead and describe what in your opinion is different between a "combat mission" and a mission that takes place after combat missions are complete? What should have changed for the convoy of fuel trucks that drive from Kuwait to Baghdad? What should change for the convoy of US troops from one base to another? Do you think US forces are providing any degree of security for the camps that they are living in? What do you think was different from August 31st- Septemeber 1st? And try to explain that with a little more detail than "combat mission"

I don't believe much will be changing from 8/31 to 9/1...but this must be significantly different than it was many years ago when we were fighting enemy troops in battles every, single day...right?

I'm sure the US forces are providing security in some capacity, both explicitly and implicitly. However, the fact that combat is possible also means that the potential is there for no combat, right? If we can believe what we read, it seems that the US troops are being relied upon to train and oversee the tasks that they performed in the past. To me, that's a big difference. It certainly doesn't mean we're 100% guaranteed that we won't lose another brave man or woman, but I'd rather be on the ground in Iraq now than several years ago...

[Redskins Diehard]

Neat...many in here have.

No one is "forgetting" what is being sacrificed by the soldiers abroad. It's not fair to bring that up just because we're trying to justify something on a message board. And I don't believe for one second the mission in Iraq was NEVER combat when we were squaring off against enemy troops and attempting to occupy cities, etc. Can you explain how that is anything other than combat?

I don't believe much will be changing from 8/31 to 9/1...but this must be significantly different than it was many years ago when we were fighting enemy troops in battles every, single day...right?

I'm sure the US forces are providing security in some capacity, both explicitly and implicitly. However, the fact that combat is possible also means that the potential is there for no combat, right? If we can believe what we read, it seems that the US troops are being relied upon to train and oversee the tasks that they performed in the past. To me, that's a big difference. It certainly doesn't mean we're 100% guaranteed that we won't lose another brave man or woman, but I'd rather be on the ground in Iraq now than several years ago...

It is not fair to bring up the fact that the President said the combat mission was over even though it seems like everyone acknowledges that soldiers will find themselves in "combat situations".

You can not believe whatever you want to not believe. I am telling you that I spent almost 18 months in either Afghanistan or Iraq and never once had a mission to go conduct "combat". Combat is a characteristic of the environment in which you perform your missions. It is safe to say that missions that were combat missions in nature have decreased. Fairly significantly since 2007. That doesn't mean it is over.

Iraq is definitely a safer place to be then it was in 2003-2007. Would you go to Iraq now without body armor? Without a weapon? Would you feel comfortably driving from Iskanderia to Tikrit in an unarmed and unarmored vehicle?

[Redskins Diehard]

Neat...many in here have.

Out of curiosity...who are the "many" that have in your opinion?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It is not fair to bring up the fact that the President said the combat mission was over even though it seems like everyone acknowledges that soldiers will find themselves in "combat situations".

I think it's fair to assume that the president meant that combat will no longer be the intention of any mission moving forward.

You can not believe whatever you want to not believe. I am telling you that I spent almost 18 months in either Afghanistan or Iraq and never once had a mission to go conduct "combat". Combat is a characteristic of the environment in which you perform your missions. It is safe to say that missions that were combat missions in nature have decreased. Fairly significantly since 2007. That doesn't mean it is over.

Again, at some point our troops had to have been going into situations in which they knew they were going to engage in combat. Know, they are going into situations where that possibility exists, just as it does every other place troops are stationed. But, it's not necessary to accomplish a goal (i.e., overthrowing Saddam). Everyone knew combat would be necessary to overthrow a dictator. No one would argue that combat is necessary to train Iraqi troops on how to conduct check points.

Iraq is definitely a safer place to be then it was in 2003-2007. Would you go to Iraq now without body armor? Without a weapon? Would you feel comfortably driving from Iskanderia to Tikrit in an unarmed and unarmored vehicle?

No. Of course not. However, that doesn't mean that our soldiers will be going into any situations where they'll want to or expect to use force.

Out of curiosity...who are the "many" that have in your opinion?

I'm not going to sift through all the posts...maybe I used the wrong word (outrage), but people were upset/against the speech.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think it's fair to assume that the president meant that combat will no longer be the intention of any mission moving forward.

Again, at some point our troops had to have been going into situations in which they knew they were going to engage in combat. Know, they are going into situations where that possibility exists, just as it does every other place troops are stationed. But, it's not necessary to accomplish a goal (i.e., overthrowing Saddam). Everyone knew combat would be necessary to overthrow a dictator. No one would argue that combat is necessary to train Iraqi troops on how to conduct check points.

No. Of course not. However, that doesn't mean that our soldiers will be going into any situations where they'll want to or expect to use force.

I'm not going to sift through all the posts...maybe I used the wrong word (outrage), but people were upset/against the speech.

Well if you did sift through to validate the claim that so many were outraged you would find that it just isn't true. In fact, some of the President's harshest critics on this board gave him credit for the speech.

And if you don't think that our soldiers are going into any situations where they'll expect to use force then you do not have a fundamental understanding of what is going on over there. And that is why the end of combat mission bit concerns me.

So we will all acknowledge that combat situations still exist even though the combat mission is over. If in your mind you think that makes sense then not sure there is any point discussing it any further. In my world, going on a mission where combat situations may exist means going on a combat mission. Whether it is the first priority, last priority, or not a priority at all.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

In my world, going on a mission where combat situations may exist means going on a combat mission. Whether it is the first priority, last priority, or not a priority at all.

We can agree to disagree.

I guess I'll be sure to keep our soldiers stationed in Germany in my prayers so they are kept safe on their combat mission...same with every police officer that pulls someone over for speeding.

[Redskins Diehard]

We can agree to disagree.

I guess I'll be sure to keep our soldiers stationed in Germany in my prayers so they are kept safe on their combat mission...same with every police officer that pulls someone over for speeding.

The soldiers in Germany have nothing to worry about. The police officers do.

The fact that you equate soldiers stationed in Germany to soldiers stationed in Baghdad illustrates why that was an unfortunate part of the President's speech. See, the combat missions in Germany actually HAVE ended. The ones in Baghdad HAVE NOT. Despite what the President sold you...and you appear to have bought.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The soldiers in Germany have nothing to worry about. The police officers do.

The fact that you equate soldiers stationed in Germany to soldiers stationed in Baghdad illustrates why that was an unfortunate part of the President's speech. See, the combat missions in Germany actually HAVE ended. The ones in Baghdad HAVE NOT. Despite what the President sold you...and you appear to have bought.

You've just illustrated my point (which was admittedly exaggerated). You just stated a couple posts up that anytime a combat mission MAY EXIST, it's a combat mission. Therefore, nothing has ended in Germany, Korea, etc. Anywhere there is a soldier with a gun, a combat mission MAY EXIST.

Now, there is no intent in any of those scenarios (same with Iraq). I'll obviously concede that Iraq is much less stable than Germany...but now we're just talking about the degree to wish fighting has stopped.

In the end, I found it ridiculous that people were railing on the semantics of the president's speech. The fact that you and I have spent several posts debating this back and forth is a perfect example of why people should take the spirit of what is said and not sift through every word with a fine-toothed comb.

[Redskins Diehard]

You've just illustrated my point (which was admittedly exaggerated). You just stated a couple posts up that anytime a combat mission MAY EXIST, it's a combat mission. Therefore, nothing has ended in Germany, Korea, etc. Anywhere there is a soldier with a gun, a combat mission MAY EXIST.

Now, there is no intent in any of those scenarios (same with Iraq). I'll obviously concede that Iraq is much less stable than Germany...but now we're just talking about the degree to wish fighting has stopped.

In the end, I found it ridiculous that people were railing on the semantics of the president's speech. The fact that you and I have spent several posts debating this back and forth is a perfect example of why people should take the spirit of what is said and not sift through every word with a fine-toothed comb.

It was the opening line of the speech. Hardly required a fine toothed comb.

Your entire exercise of comparing Iraq to Germany ignores something called a Status of Forces Agreement. Those agreements are in place with any foreign government which is hosting our military. Do you think those are the same for Iraq and Germany? Korea? Italy? Spain? And anywhere else we have forces present?

You keep saying "people were railing" against the speech. Do you know that you are upset about something that doesn't exist? Just something that you want to think exists. Nobody has railed. Nobody has been outraged here. You are just making that up. In fact, kind of like how the President just made up that the combat mission was ended. I guess things don't have to be true.

[Hardcoreskinsfan]

I know for a fact that no one on the left made an effigy of Bush hanging from a tree after he was elected President. Just sayin.

I'm just curious if you were sleeping during the Bush administration. Some of the things that were said about Bush were pretty awful. They may not have made an effigy of Bush hanging from a tree but I think I remember a video about him being a Nazi? I know....not the same thing right? Just sayin.

[Hardcoreskinsfan]

We can agree to disagree.

I guess I'll be sure to keep our soldiers stationed in Germany in my prayers so they are kept safe on their combat mission...same with every police officer that pulls someone over for speeding.

I get the sarcasm but that statement is the most ridiculous one in this thread.

I get what the prez was trying to say and I actually agree that combat "ops" are over there. Having recently returned from there I would say that Iraq is much more secure than the first time I went in 2003. Thing is, combat "ops" have been over in Iraq for some time now.

The point that many are making in this whole debate is that the President is using them for political gain, much like the previous administration did and "SURPRISE" we don't like it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I get the sarcasm but that statement is the most ridiculous one in this thread.

I get what the prez was trying to say and I actually agree that combat "ops" are over there. Having recently returned from there I would say that Iraq is much more secure than the first time I went in 2003. Thing is, combat "ops" have been over in Iraq for some time now.

The point that many are making in this whole debate is that the President is using them for political gain, much like the previous administration did and "SURPRISE" we don't like it.

Well, I am playing devil's advocate here since I don't like Obama. I don't think he's really using it for his personal gain as much as he's announcing a development. Isn't that his role?

I realize that combat ops have been over for a while...that's why I was surprised his statement met any push back from anyone.

Redskins Diehard, again...we'll agree to disagree on this one. I think the message he was trying to get across was the right one. If you don't agree that combat ops are over because there's always a chance that someone will attack our troops, I get that. To a lot of us though, that's two different things.

[Hardcoreskinsfan]

You've just illustrated my point (which was admittedly exaggerated). You just stated a couple posts up that anytime a combat mission MAY EXIST, it's a combat mission. Therefore, nothing has ended in Germany, Korea, etc. Anywhere there is a soldier with a gun, a combat mission MAY EXIST.

Now, there is no intent in any of those scenarios (same with Iraq). I'll obviously concede that Iraq is much less stable than Germany...but now we're just talking about the degree to wish fighting has stopped.

Dude, seriously? This is the 2nd most ridiculous post on here. There is plenty of intent in Iraq for people to kill Americans, the fact that you would even say there isn't, invalidates anything and everything you may have to say on this topic and I don't mean the speech I mean combat ops.

Have you ever served? My guess would be no based on your opinions in this case, and the ignorance you display about Germany and Korea.

P.S. We don't carry guns in Germany or Korea. The only people with guns in those countries are the guards at the gates of the bases.