US forces help repel attack on Baghdad military HQ

Source: Associated Press

American officials say that U.S. troops helped repel a complex attack by a group of heavily armed militants against a Baghdad military headquarters.

The fighting comes five days after the U.S. said it formally ended combat operations in Iraq.

A U.S. military spokesman said the Americans helped provide suppressive fire Sunday while Iraqi Army soldiers located two terrorists who had entered the compound.

Twelve people were killed in the attack. None of them were Americans.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD9I1TDHG0

Apparently "suppressive fire" is not a military operation.

They said they ended COMBAT operations - Obama didn't say the war was OVER.

We are still at war. We still have 10s of thousands of U.S. troops and probably 2x that may contractors over there.

Do you think he said the war was OVER??

Straddling a mighty aircraft carrier. Oh wait, that Mission Accomplished banner was meant for his Saudi and Dubai backers, not the American people.

just a very large revenue stream funded by an illegal invasion and hostile occupation. That's not a 'war'.

I also know that congress has never declared it a war.

I know Bush said "Mission Accomplished" when it was NOT so - and as combat continued.

I get it.

But removing "combat troops" doesn't mean that we don't have other troops in Iraq.

And it doesn't mean the war/invasion/illegal invasion is over either.

It was an incremental step to pulling out all troops. That goal is set for 2011. And I know we'll still have troops there after that - just like we do in Germany or Japan and we'll likely never pull out all troops because of the huge embassy.

It won't be "over" for a long long time.

But I don't think OBAMA ever said it would be over for a LONG TIME. he certainly didn't say Mission Accomplished. And i don't think he ver said that troops would be weaponless or change the rules of engagement to be "no engagement."

So which WAR are you talking about? That war was over a long time ago, right? You couldn't mean the "insurgents" that the SURGE already disposed of, could you?

- The MIC isn't giving up any revenue streams, alright? It's all BULLSHIT..........

K&R

"The MIC isn't giving up any revenue streams..." As you said, all BULLSHIT..........

The MIC is a for profit corporation, and no corporation does anything to stop its profit. This damn mess is going to go on for years. It's as Dwight Eisenhower said years ago, playing out again.

The combat mission is over, except when it is obvious that it is nowhere near over..
A stable, pro-west, secular, unified Iraq is still decades of sacrifice away..

are white lies any different from normal lies. End of combat my foot.

And those were training bullets they were firing at our troops.

I am sure the Pentagon will classify any US casualties as "training" casualties.

There is no combat in Operation New Dawn.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

don't leave many dead and wounded but they can sting like hell... :toast:

Source: AP

By BARBARA SURK, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 48 mins ago -

BAGHDAD – Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.

It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting. The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.

Sunday's hour-long assault was the second in as many weeks on the facility, the headquarters for the Iraqi Army's 11th Division, pointing to the failure of Iraqi forces to plug even the most obvious holes in their security. Two of the four attackers even managed to fight their way inside the compound and were only killed after running out of ammunition and detonating explosives belts they were wearing.

The American troops who joined the fight and provided cover fire for Iraqi soldiers pursuing the attackers were based at the compound to train Iraqi forces, said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom. Iraqi forces also requested help from U.S. helicopters, drones and explosives experts, he said. No American troops were hurt, Bloom said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100905/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The "simple minded idiots" are the ones who refuse to hear what the mission of the remaining troops is.

The "simple minded idiots" are the ones who thought that these soldiers were going to sit around and play tidily winks until they go home.

The "simple minded idiots" are the ones who refuse to see any difference between initiating combat operations and assisting when asked.

The "simple minded idiots" are the ones who chortle smugly in their unfounded belief that the administration has somehow "lied", when they it is they who refuse to hear or never bother to find out what was really said.

A pox on all their houses.

:rofl:

nice try

Obama was clearly not comfortable giving that speech but hey, we have an election coming up

You might find the truth some day.

P.S. Sayonara. You are not worth any more of my time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are we still claiming that we will "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up" and are able to create a stable, pro-west, secular, unified governement? Or is it something else we are fighting for?

If you think about it, anyone NEW at any oisition needs a guiding hand at first. Tht applies to anything not just war.

how stupid do they think we are?

they do not get combat pay now.

the troops who are defending them. x(

Luckily, there weren't any US training casualties this time.

Source: AP

BAGHDAD — Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.

It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.

The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.

Sunday's hour-long assault was the second in as many weeks on the facility, the headquarters for the Iraqi Army's 11th Division, pointing to the failure of Iraqi forces to plug even the most obvious holes in their security

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39019711/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

That the troops left behind in Iraq would be engaging in combat shortly?

Certainly not the Very Serious Persons..

But I bet if you asked a Dirty Fucking Hippie he could have predicted it with ease..

It's a phased withdraw. Since you prefer leaving Iraqi security forces high and dry with a mass exodus, do you care to join them?

Let those who favored the invasion and occupation of Iraq be those to sacrifice for the continued presence of US troops.

People like Dick Ctheney..

He was eerily prophetic about Iraq in this 1994 video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

I wonder what changed his mind between then and 2003?

in between mouthfuls of cake frosting.

Pretty much anyone else could have told you, though. Maybe you should have asked?

He bought these terrible wars from George Bush.

A very stupid political move (imho)

He opposed the war in Iraq but supported the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

He promised to do a phased withdraw from Iraq and to ramp up Afghanistan. So far he's been fulfilling both promises. You might disagree with his position, but don't act like it was this big surprise.

.

Once he became President, he listened to his generals and, unlike President Kennedy, believed everything they told him.

His actions once he became President and what he promised during his campaign have been totally consistent.

Whether or not he was in Congress at the time the war started doesn't negate anything. He opposed the war. Once he was in Congress he opposed the troop surge. While he was in Congress and as President he has consistently said the Iraq war was a mistake.

He promised a *phased* withdraw in his campaign and he's done exactly as he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq



Followed by:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4833651-503544.html

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.

And positioning yourself as the "clueless dumbfuck" in the discussion does you no favors

We'll see how long it takes. My position is that this is simply a re-branding, just as it was when the Gitmo prisoners were moved to Bagram.

Your position can be anything you want. But everything we've been doing since Obama took office to prepare for withdraw.

and I'm glad you're back in NC. Obama got the moderate vote in this election because people know Bush lied to take the nation to war, and then tanked the economy to boot. I know it is 8 years of crap to fix, but the problem for voters now is that it looks like everything Bush started is continuing. That will cause low voter turn-out (except for the crazy teabaggers who will be there with bells on).

All the contractor, mercenary thugs are still there number in the thousands.

Iraqi forces are routinely attacked. Do you really think that's going to stop after we leave completely? Are you really upset that US forces aided them with suppressive fire and aerial surveillance?

He is still there holding on to power!

The Status of Forces Agreement and the time line for our phased withdraw was agreed upon a long time ago.

Which Iraqi authority do you recognize that has called for an immediate mass exodus of US forces? Why do you object to some US forces being left behind to assist the Iraqi army as they stand up on their own?

There is no point in keeping them in harm's way in what has been the worst strategic decision made by a country since the US decided to assist the forerunners to the Taliban overthrow the Marxist government in Afghanistan.

We can debate Afghanistan separately, but this thread pertains to the troop withdraw from Iraq.

Even when one US Army unit replaces another there is a transition period to assist their replacements. It's called a "RIP/TOA" which stands for Relief in Place/Transfer of Authority. And even though it's units from the US army replacing another US army unit (which should be seamless) the transition takes months.

The transition with Iraqi forces is much more difficult and delicate. Not only are we being replaced by someone a totally different army, it's one that is far less organized, less cohesive and less equipped. Obviously a transition period is warranted.

Our main concern now is to stop putting more names in a future black marble monument, and that means bringing our troops home as quickly as they went in.

Sorry but that makes no sense.

It was in the city of Ur, in present day Iraq, that Abraham used to live at about the time the white Europeans were nothing but savages.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/iraq-bomb-kills-12-tariq-aziz-says-hell-die-in-jail/19621706

Iraq Bomb Kills 12

A suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of recruits and civilians outside the same building last month, killing more than 60 people.

.........................


How much time have you spent in Iraq working and training with Iraqi forces? What specific expertise do you have to make the determination they will be "fine" without a transition period?

If you are so concerned about what is happening there, then you shouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq that toppled a secular government and replaced it with a Shia religious one that is in cahoots with Iran.

MUCH worse than Sabdam!

...Indiana, seriously? Use sarcasm tags!

"then you shouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq"

Since you're a person of integrity and you wouldn't just make shit up, please copy and paste where I've ever said I supported the invasion of Iraq.

Standard issue IG.

That is a historical fact!

changing anytime soon.

You are not so naive to think we would give them ACTUAL democracy, do you?

Which authority in Iraq do you recognize that wants us to immediately leave en masse as opposed to doing a gradual withdraw as we turn over the responsibility of security?

Since you want us to leave Iraqi forces high and dry are you going to volunteer to join them?

But as Chomsky always points out, the elites don't give a damn what the Iraqis think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdwRuq9KWTA

How many Iraqis have you spoken with?

we were lied to, by the Preznit - just like the last guy!

I suppose that was literally true on Tuesday night, when he gave his speech. I guess you could say he didn't know for sure how many days it would be until the forces left behind would be needed, you know, for combat.

Thinking isn't very hard, you should od more of it

:eyes:

to pretend it isn't the same thing. If we say it isn't our mission to engage in combat, then when we engage in combat it isn't war any more! Voila!

Loved your insult, by the way. Your spelling gave it that extra zing.

You can be engaged in combat without conducting combat operations. There are many, many missions that are not combat related. Combat missions are things like raids and movement to contact. There are also countless examples of non-combat missions - things like resupply, civil affairs and training and advising.

Nobody, including President Obama has said or implied that the 50,000 remaining American troops would never have to defend themselves or assist Iraqi forces.

Obama is implementing a phased withdraw on schedule for the eventual withdraw of all US forces. This includes the gradual redeployment of US forces as well as the gradual shift of responsibility to Iraqi forces. The latter involves the change that took place in the status of forces agreement (the details of which I won't go into) as well as converting our FOBs to JSS's... to the complete turn over of bases to the Iraqi military.

Long live the war.

:sarcasm:

Putting a smiley face on GOP failed policies doesn't make them work.

Source: NY Times

"A spokesman for the American military in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Eric Bloom, confirmed in a statement that American soldiers had joined the defense of the compound, providing “suppressive fire” while Iraqi Army troops counterattacked."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html?ref=todayspaper

---

If American troops are still in combat - did combat operations really end?

Apparently not.

The foreign policy of the USA is dictated by powerful lobbies, and there is a narrative which convinces the common man that USA must be an imperial power, the policeman of the world. Magazines, newspapers, TV commentators, and those who are allowed to speak remain in their majority supporters of the imperial posture. Therefore, you are doomed to see your soldiers die and be wounded, and your treasury looted for these occupations and invasions.

I see no solution to this problem, the Military Industrial Complex, the Israel Lobby, the Christian Imperialists, and other forces are too powerful, and there are no honest politicians willing to say the truth. You will never win this supposed war on terror, because this is a war you started, and you fuel. And if you continue to pour fuel on the fire, then how can you ever extinguish it?

The story of your problems is complex, and there are many subtle details. But the two main parties are involved in deceiving you. I think President Obama is a sophisticated thinker, and realizes this is not a good situation for you, but he has to survive in the blood soaked waters in Washington, and this means he can't do what he probably thinks is the right thing to do. He is not powerful enough to stop these powerful lobbies, and the elites which drive them forth. Thus, you are doomed. You will be defeated, and eventually, like Imperial Rome, you will be no more. And this is truly a pity, because most of you are not really bad guys, you only have very bad leaders.

Corruption runs rampant.

Elections are a joke, it seems, and no one really knows for certain if they truly represent the wishes of the people.

Wait a minute...were we talking about the United States or the Middle East?

Sadly, sometimes I get them confused. :shrug:

:sarcasm:

I don't think the word sarcasm was needed, the comment was quite well crafted, and you are indeed very right. I salute you.

Welcome to DU. It's always good to hear non-american voices.

when the enemy is able to attack your HQ?

just our military "advisors" advising their weapons to shoot.

We are never leaving.