USA Pulls Out of Iraq...

The combat mission has ended and all combat troops have left Iraq.

Any US/Coalition personnel still in Iraq are part of security details or are training others to do what we used to do.

So combat troops won't do security details? Is the security done by some other division of our military?

The combat mission has ended and all combat troops have left Iraq.

Any US/Coalition personnel still in Iraq are part of security details or are training others to do what we used to do.

That's not true. Combat troops have simply been renamed. A friend of the family has been there and will continue to be there. Same weaps, same unit, same patrol. They've been training Iraqis for several years now anyways.

Obama said he was against waterboarding but he simply pays others to do it for us. Smoke and mirrors. He knows his followers are stupid...

I've heard that soldiers get greater pay when they are stationed in combat zones. Will this change mean that the soldiers in Iraq will be paid less? Is this his plan to reduce government spending? I don't remember Obama saying that he would change the roll of troops in Iraq, but I clearly remember him saying he was going to bring the troops home. This doesn't sound like he is bringing them home. (He already increased the number of troops over there last year.)

President Obama was very careful to keep it in his drawers unlike the previous president.

I've heard that soldiers get greater pay when they are stationed in combat zones. Will this change mean that the soldiers in Iraq will be paid less? Is this his plan to reduce government spending? I don't remember Obama saying that he would change the roll of troops in Iraq, but I clearly remember him saying he was going to bring the troops home. This doesn't sound like he is bringing them home. (He already increased the number of troops over there last year.)

They still get combat pay. Tune in to NPR to get the complete story. They just will no longer be the driving force behind strategic combat decisions. That falls on the Iraquis. The American troops are there to help. Obviously chances of success however you define it are not 100%.

What happens if/when the Iraqi commanders make bad combat decisions which put US soldiers in harms way? Will Iraq be running all strategy by the USA before taking any actions?

That's not true. Combat troops have simply been renamed. A friend of the family has been there and will continue to be there. Same weaps, same unit, same patrol. They've been training Iraqis for several years now anyways.

Obama said he was against waterboarding but he simply pays others to do it for us. Smoke and mirrors. He knows his followers are stupid...

I didn't say there were no more US troops in Iraq, I said the only US troops remaining there were for training purposes - which is what it sounds like your friend is/has been doing.

President Obama was very careful to keep it in his drawers unlike the previous president.

From my part of the country.."drawers" is slang for pants...by previous president I am sure you didn't mean Bush...so perhaps you should have stated "previous-previous president"!

Koa, come out of your Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, "all Obama supporters are stupid" hole once in a while and you might see that we agree on many things.

Case in point-
have a look at a similar thread as this one which has a liberal (see post 7) making your point in a nonpartisan manner and a mix of conservatives and liberals *discussing* the issue. Let this be an example to us all that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And we can agree without being disagreeable too.

http://www.sowal.com/bb/politics-current-events/50161-last-combat-troops-leave-iraq.html

I didn't say there were no more US troops in Iraq, I said the only US troops remaining there were for training purposes - which is what it sounds like your friend is/has been doing.

You actually said that all combat troops had left Iraq, which it sounds like is not the case. They will remain in Iraq, but just change their stated purpose, if I correctly understand the other comments.

Speaking as a liberal Democrat, I have come to the conclusion that for me, going forward these two wars are now totally non partisan issues ( as in I have stopped blaming Bush/Cheney/Clinton).

I think every American citizen has an iterest in these ending as soon as possible, much good, non-partisan, common ground there. Although there will be residual forces there for some time to come in both Irag and Afghanistan.

Lets leave the national flags of these two countries up and remove the American flag there at some point..and remove the Democratic and Republican flags right now!

I thought after Hussein was captured we were to engage in combat only if fired upon. Our training of Iraqis started then.....approx 2004 time frame?? Did I dream this?

You actually said that all combat troops had left Iraq, which it sounds like is not the case. They will remain in Iraq, but just change their stated purpose, if I correctly understand the other comments.

The last official US combat brigade left Iraq at dawn last Thursday. Some US units remain, but their primary mission is to train Iraqi troops and they are ALL supposed to leave by late 2011.

Here's my problem. I do not disagree that a large number of military personnel have come home, but how many "contractors" are there in addition to the 50k trainers. They are still funded by the US. Did anyone see the multi-issue series that ran in the Washington Post where the Secretary of Defernde could not say how many MI complex people were being paid by the government. Not to be an alarmist but I would wager that our "contract" force has nearly the same capability (number of personnel) as our military. We are privatizing our military and very few are catching on. I will take my foil hat off, but I am wondering if anyone can give a true accounting of how many people paid for by the US gov't are in Iraq and Afghan., and 2. How many military contractors have been killed in addition to US soldiers. I fear the numbers are very large and since the men and women aren't "in uniform" we will never know the "true costs" of our wars.

Here's my problem. I do not disagree that a large number of military personnel have come home, but how many "contractors" are there in addition to the 50k trainers. They are still funded by the US. Did anyone see the multi-issue series that ran in the Washington Post where the Secretary of Defernde could not say how many MI complex people were being paid by the government. Not to be an alarmist but I would wager that our "contract" force has nearly the same capability (number of personnel) as our military. We are privatizing our military and very few are catching on. I will take my foil hat off, but I am wondering if anyone can give a true accounting of how many people paid for by the US gov't are in Iraq and Afghan., and 2. How many military contractors have been killed in addition to US soldiers. I fear the numbers are very large and since the men and women aren't "in uniform" we will never know the "true costs" of our wars.

This is in fact the case. Glad you pointed this out. It's easy to forget since the media doesn't like to report it.

Aside from the whole "mercenary" thing, I also resent that we pay the "military contractors" more to do the same job.

SB44, IMO the bigger question I have is what are their rules of engagement? Are they held to the same standards as the men and women in uniform?