Skip to main content

Things are true because words mean what I say they do

Overseas contingency operations will replace the war on terror.

We will no longer use the term enemy combatants even though we will still engage in extraordinary rendition and we assert the power to hold people pretty much forever without charges.

President Obama will keep his promise to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by renaming them:

Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission," and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterized differently."

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, you are certainly cherry-picking here. Look again at Gates' statement just before the part that you emboldened: "Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission," and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterized differently.""

A "different kind of mission", says Gates, Steve. Apparently you don't believe him, correct? Why not?

Perry Hood
When I went back to finish my degree in the late 80's, early 90's, I was called a "non-traditionally aged student".

LOL. They should have just said "old broad".
Anonymous said…
Shirley, that's a good one!

And good for you! I'll bet you had a few things to teach those younguns, students and professors alike!!

Perry Hood
Anonymous said…
Perry: Is there ANYTHING people say about Obama for which you won't defend him?

I'm sure you thought it was "cherry picking" when people laughed at Reagan's "enhanced radiation weapon" (aka the neutron bomb) and "revenue enhancements" (aka tax increases). This is the precisely the same thing.

Duh.
Perry,

The kind of mission doesn't matter.

Candidate and President Obama both promised the withdrawal of "combat troops."

In case you don't understand the different, combat brigades are collections of Infantry, armor, and artillery units.

Combat support troops are logistical units.

What Obama and Gates are doing is the equivalent of taking a .44 magnum handgun, sticking a paper label on it that says "Peacemaker," and then telling people they've taken guns off the streets.

I really try to be nicer than Hube, but either (a) you just don't get it; (b) you are the complete Obama apologist; or (c) you are one of my libertarian friends posting as Perry Hood to see how long it will take me to determine you're not really serious.

Which is it?
Anonymous said…
Steve, I take Gates at his word, unless demonstrated otherwise. Let us assume that the units remaining contain the three unit types you listed. Do we then assume a mission for them to be other than what Gates said? It could well be that they will be in training mode for the Iraqi military. It could mean that they will be used for protection purposes instead of for combat missions. Neither you nor have any evidence to the contrary. Your view is based mainly on speculation. That said, you could be correct.

On your other point, I have admired and trusted Obama since he announced his intentions and I read his two books. Yes, politically we are on the same page on most issues. Moreover, I trust him, much as you probably trust Ron Paul, or someone who represents your political/ideological preferences/agenda very well.

So far, I think Obama is doing a very good job under extremely trying circumstances, in spite of the critics like Hube, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, BillO, and the like, who do all they can on a daily basis to bring him down.

Perry Hood

PS: I'm sorry to be missing your get together tonight.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...