US ‘Non-Combat’ Mission in Iraq Looking an Awful Lot Like Combat
Heavily Armed US Troops Clash With Insurgents
US troops, which officials are forever reminding us are in Iraq purely in a non-combat role, engaged in heavy combat again yesterday, underscoring the realities of a war that is still going on in everything but name.
Spokesmen referred to this as “assisting and advising” but in any sane world it would have another name: combat. The details of the official explanation, peppered with the words “advise” and “assist” to the point of almost absurdity, suggest another thing — that the US is still very much taking the lead here.
US forces “advised” the leaders on strategy, US soldiers fired the mortars, US warplanes bombed the entrenched insurgents. Seemingly the only reason the Iraqi troops were on hand at all was so they could claim the whole thing was something other than the continuation, as always, of the US war in Iraq.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- No Deal: US Restarted Pakistan Drone Strikes Despite Objections - February 22nd, 2012
- Syrian National Council Demands Foreign Invasion - February 22nd, 2012
- State Dept.: Pakistani Taliban 'Not Welcome' at Truce Talks - February 22nd, 2012
- Israeli FM: Our Decision to Attack Iran None of US, Russia's Business - February 22nd, 2012
- Hunger Strike Ends, but Adnan's Detention Without Charges Doesn't - February 22nd, 2012




The

Valerianus
September 14th, 2010 at 7:43 am
How quickly it is forgotten that the US "advisers" in South Vietnam were up to their necks in fighting. On the other hand, the FedGov doesn't need a "Gulf of Tonkin" to send the troops back into Iraq in a formal way. Instead, there's a really handy status of forces agreement to provide for that.