Obama's Iraq Pullout on Schedule; 1,000 More Troops on Their Way!

Brian Doherty | September 15, 2009

From the Army Times:

About 3,000 additional troops are headed to Afghanistan....

The troops are what the military calls “combat enablers” — noncombat troops who specialize in areas such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; explosives ordnance disposal; medical and mental health; and personnel administration. They will deploy in team-sized elements as opposed to larger units, according to the official, who asked not to be identified.

About 1,000 such troops also will deploy to Iraq...both groups are being sent in response to existing requests by the theater commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The so-called “request for forces” was approved two weeks ago by Defense Secretary Robert Gates....

Back in December 2006, I wondered when a supposed Democratic antiwar mandate would have results on the ground. I'm still wondering.

Comments

Silentz|9.15.09 @ 10:08PM|#

Thankfully the anti-war crowd that was shrieking during the Bush years is still yelling just as loudly.

|9.15.09 @ 10:38PM|#

This is turning into a Bush=Obama extravaganza here tonight.

$|9.15.09 @ 11:32PM|#

It's unfair. Obama's worse on about half of everything, and he deserves credit for that.

Suki|9.16.09 @ 12:03AM|#

Brian,

Want to read up on military stuff before you spout about it any more?

Thanx

Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 12:55AM|#

Yeah, it sounds more like a modification of the structure of forces in Iraq than an actual increase.

Suki|9.16.09 @ 1:03AM|#

Yeah, it sounds more like a modification of the structure of forces in Iraq than an actual increase.

That or a few more of the protecting the forces people (force protection? I am sure I have the name wrong). I guess the same you were saying.

Oh, the horrid horror of sending a few more "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; explosives ordnance disposal; medical and mental health; and personnel administration" people in there. Imagine the headline if they were Infantry!

Cal Lipigian|9.16.09 @ 1:24AM|#

(force protection? I am sure I have the name wrong)

Perhaps you could read up on military stuff

Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 1:29AM|#

That or a few more of the protecting the forces people (force protection? I am sure I have the name wrong). I guess the same you were saying.

You got it right: force protection. And as you'd guess, Iraqi forces have been and are being trained in all those areas of 'combat enabling' (intelligence, recon, health, etc.), not just infantry tactics. They have to be well-rounded to be self-sufficient.

mark|9.16.09 @ 1:31AM|#

That headline hurt, Mr. Doherty.

no matter... because war is over

Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 1:31AM|#

And force protection is not to be confused with force projection.

Skelton|9.16.09 @ 1:48AM|#

Since when are recon guys considered "non-combat". Yes, they're not supposed to engage the enemy, but recon is a combat role.

Try telling 1st Recon, Rangers, or a Cav Scout that they have a non-combat role.

Distinguished Gentleman|9.16.09 @ 2:07AM|#

Speaking with friends that have recently been sent to both theaters, very few are doing infantry "go out and kill the bad guy" type of work. They both do security sweeps via Humvee and pray they don't run over IEDs. What I'm saying is calling them non-infantry is just a twisting of semantics, as the overwhelming majority called in do "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance" work already. There may be some specialists coming in but this troop power is being used to retake areas that have broken into chaos. As in 21 year olds with no field experience.

Doherty's position is cogent. He was against the war because he doesn't think Iraq was a major national security threat, it was based on false premises and that Iraqis should be in charge of their own damn security. In 2006, Dems ran an anti-war platform and won. In 2009 we're still holding the Iraqi's hands and putting our troops in the middle of a sectarian battle for power.

Kolohe|9.16.09 @ 2:07AM|#

For every 1,000 people that are being sent to Iraq, there are about a gazillion people leaving Iraq to either return to their home posts or enroute to Afghanistan.

Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 2:35AM|#

Skelton,

I assumed they were talking about UAV operators and suchlike, not Cav Scouta, Rangers, etc.

Kolohe,

True.

|9.16.09 @ 7:41AM|#

The secondary mission of all these youngsters is to fight like infantrymen. They are trained in infantry tactics and carry individual weapons. I know, I know, someone has to protect the officers' club but they are all going to be getting combat pay.

Brian Doherty|9.16.09 @ 8:00AM|#

Documentation on those gazillions, Kolohe? Respectable media reports on total troop levels indicate a reduction from March to now of about 4,000---from total 135K to 131K. These thousand reverse a quarter of that.

A full military operation requires more than just infantry, something I would have figured the author of Suki IV: Finally A Vacation would understand. 1,000 more troops really does mean 1,000 more troops, and that much farther to the long-promised end to active military operations in Iraq.

Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 8:31AM|#

Well said, Brian, and to be fair, even though it's not a battalion, it is a battalion-sized element.

!|9.16.09 @ 10:02AM|#

A full military operation requires more than just infantry, something I would have figured the author of Suki IV: Finally A Vacation would understand. 1,000 more troops really does mean 1,000 more troops, and that much farther to the long-promised end to active military operations in Iraq.

Actually the primary author is me (John), my blogger and writer helper buddy was commenting to you last night when us normal diurnals were snoozing.

Your headline is a bit alarmist. Looks like Art-P.O.G. has a good perspective on this.

|9.16.09 @ 10:08AM|#

Remember when FDR campaigned on "we will not send American boys into any foreign wars" the whole time he was trying to get the U.S. into World War II? That was awesome!

Colin|9.16.09 @ 10:26AM|#

Thank God change came in November.

jtuf|9.16.09 @ 10:38AM|#

So Obama sends 1,000 more troops into harms way but still neglects to protect or give visas to the residents of Camp Ashraf.

|9.16.09 @ 11:00AM|#

Back in December 2006, I wondered when a supposed Democratic antiwar mandate would have results on the ground. I'm still wondering.

Try not to think about it. The grownups are in charge, now.

economist|9.16.09 @ 11:26AM|#

Stop pissing on the Hope and Change!

!|9.16.09 @ 12:06PM|#

I thought we were voting for Hops & Change? Did I misread a memo?

|9.16.09 @ 3:57PM|#

I would ask all you liberaltarians how that Hope and Change is working out for you, but I won't.

Suki|9.16.09 @ 5:45PM|#

Actually the primary author is me (John), my blogger and writer helper buddy was commenting to you last night when us normal diurnals were snoozing.

John Tagliaferro! Ugh!

|9.16.09 @ 8:31PM|#

"The U.S. military is packing up to leave Iraq in what has been deemed the largest movement of personnel and equipment in modern military history - shipping out more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment from tanks to antennas along with a force the size of a small city.

The massive operation already under way a year ahead of the Aug. 31, 2010, deadline to remove the U.S. combat troops from Iraq shows the U.S. military has picked up the pace of a planned exit from Iraq that could cost billions.

The goal is to withdraw tens of thousands of troops and about 60 percent of equipment from Iraq by the end of March,"

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/31/troop-withdrawal-requires-mammoth-military-effort/?uniontrib

Kolohe|9.16.09 @ 9:54PM|#

Documentation on those gazillions, Kolohe?

Personal observation on the transit into the Centcom AOR.

John Tagliaferro|9.16.09 @ 10:15PM|#

Brian,

If you would like an advance PDF of the book just email me on Gmail. You might not like it. Israel leads the whole world in kicking Iran's ass and there is a Libertarian wedding in it too.