End, or no end?

[Artemis~]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11147300

 

 

We've all heard about it, and I'm genuinely curious as to what you guys think about this...Is this an official end to the war in Iraq, or just a temporary treaty until crap hits the fan again?

[Lilith]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[waterplant]

How a war differs from 'combat operations' seems a bit vague to me - kind of like the US wants a presence in Iraq without the 'bring it on', as a former President once put it. Obama can now focus on that other unsolvable dilemma/ black hole of the domestic economy.

[waterplant]

The graph in the article is interesting in that Obama's election coincides with a steep decline in casualties.

[Artemis~]

Oh? Interesting indeed, I didn't take the time to take a look at the graph. >.<

[Aran]

If we can end the war by defining it as over, then didn't the war end on May 1, 2003?

[Artemis~]

Well, of course not, since combat operations still moved on afterwards.

 

But to be technical, war could mean alot of things. War is defined by Mirriam Webster as "(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict"

 

"Armed hostile conflict" meaning the war isn't over until the guns are down.

[Enraged Slith]

The government lies, man, they told me everything would change when Obama was elected but there are still no flying cars and I don't have a girlfriend.

 

I really don't understand how this country operates, so I'm just going to pull two quotes from the article:

 

Quote:

The outgoing US military commander, Gen Raymond Odierno, handed over to Gen Lloyd Austin, who will be in charge of the 50,000 troops remaining in the country to "advise and assist" Iraqi forces.

 

Quote:

Mr Obama said the drawdown in Iraq allowed the US military to divert resources to the fight in Afghanistan, where he said the US remained committed to defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

Has anything really changed?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

The government lies, man, they told me everything would change when Obama was elected but there are still no flying cars and I don't have a girlfriend.

If there are no flying cars or jetpacks, that is the fault of the physicists for spending too much time on silly things like dark matter and not enough time on practical [read: awesome] things like said flying cars or jetpacks.

[Randomizer]

It's a matter of semantics. Like when Bush said, "Mission accomplished."

 

They may not be combat troops, but the ones left over there don't feel a difference when they are being attacked.

[Triumph]

It's a war. Wars do end, but they rarely have clean, neat stopping points where you can point and say "and right at this time it stopped." WWI (or the Great War) is a bit exceptional, perhaps, for having such a famous stopping time. Right now, we're probably not in a position to really know whether this is the end of this war. But it certainly makes a handy talking point for politicians, regardless.

[Enraged Slith]

It's not going to win the Democrats any votes what with the fact that they're destroying jobs and making health insurance companies raise their rates with socialism.

[Tirien]

I smell a political debate coming....

 

No wait, thats just the meatloaf.

[Triumph]

Meatloaf the food, or the band?

[Tirien]

...Im not even going to ask why I would smell a band... and kids these days are crazy, naming their bands after food and so on...

[Callie]

Yeah, just to add to what other people have said, there are still 50,000 armed troops in Iraq to serve as "advisors." US soldiers in the Vietnam War were called "advisors." If somebody opens fire on them they will shoot back. Keep in mind that the number of private contractors in Iraq is soon going to be about 100,000.

 

Also, the US never officially declared war on Iraq, so that's why Obama is using language such as "combat mission." It's nothing to get excited about, and it's still going to drag the country down with an even greater deficit. Don't be surprised if Iraq gets friendly with Iran, too.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Keep in mind that the number of private contractors in Iraq is soon going to be about 100,000.

This. There are lots of respected authors who clearly show that even as we draw down official military presence in the form of boots on the ground, we're bulking up our mercenary presence there in the form of private military contractors - such as the infamous Blackwater. So, really, we aren't leaving Iraq at all. We're just changing the guise by which we are.

And, if we are to believe the politicians, we'll have all of our troops off the ground within one year of now. Who knows what mess we'll leave behind, with the Iraqi government having no locus of leadership now. Let alone the risk of yet another boost in PMC involvement.

This article discusses the shift from troops on the ground to combat troops.

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Don't be surprised if Iraq gets friendly with Iran, too.

This I would be surprised about; the countries historically, and demographically, tend to be more at odds with each other than anything. Even after the US left, the puppet government isn't likely to just collapse completely; I see no reason for the two nations to get very friendly with each other, short of Iranian hegemony manifesting itself.

[Callie]

There's certainly an underlying level of ill-will between the two nations; they went to war with each other, after all. Friendly wasn't the right word to use, but Iraq's current PM has assured Iran that Iraq will not make a security deal with the United States. The PM had once lived in exile in Iran, and he has closer ties to Iran than the US government would wish.

 

I don't blame Iraq for wanting to keep its sovereignty.

[Alex]

The first two things that came into mind upon hearing of the withdrawal were "Vietnamization" and this pic: