WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite President Barack Obama’s declaration Tuesday of an end to the combat mission in Iraq, combat almost certainly lies ahead.
And in asserting the U.S. has met its responsibilities in Iraq, the president opened the door wide to a debate about the meaning of success in the muddle that most — but not all — American troops are leaving behind.
A look at some of the statements Obama made in his Oval Office speech and how they compare with the facts:
___
OBAMA: “Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.”
THE FACTS: Peril remains for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops still in Iraq, who are likely if not certain to engage violent foes. Counterterrorism is chief among their continuing missions, pitting them against a lethal enemy. Several thousand special operations forces, including Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, will continue to hunt and attempt to kill al-Qaida and other terrorist fighters — working closely with Iraqi forces. Obama said, “Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission,” while stopping short of a full accounting of the hazards ahead for U.S. troops.
___
OBAMA: “We have met our responsibility.”
THE FACTS: That depends entirely on how the U.S. responsibility is defined.
Sectarian division — the danger that Obama said as a presidential candidate had to be addressed before Iraq could succeed — continues to deprive the country of a fully functioning government. U.S. goals for reconstruction are unmet. And although the U.S. says Iraqi forces can handle the insurgency largely on their own, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter a possible attack by a neighboring state.
It was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, overthrew its government, disbanded its security forces and failed in the early phases of the conflict to understand the depth of Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic divisions and its political paralysis. The U.S. in some minds is responsible for putting Iraq back together again, yet today Iraq has no permanent government and its security forces arguably are not fully prepared to defend the country’s skies and borders.
In inheriting a war he opposed from the start, Obama did not accept U.S. responsibilities so broadly.
It will take time to see if his more limited view of success bears out. In May, he said: “This is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign and stable and self-reliant.”
Al-Qaida terrorists are “not gone” from Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday. But he hailed “an important victory against transnational terror” because “al-Qaida in Iraq has been largely cut from its masters abroad.”
___
OBAMA: “Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has shortchanged investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.”
THE FACTS: This is partly true. For sure, the costly Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed to the nation’s budget deficit — but not by as much as Obama suggests. The current annual deficit is now an estimated $1.5 trillion. But as recently as 2007, the budget deficit was just $161.5 billion. And that was years after war expenses were in place for both the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.
Most of the current deficit is due to the longest recession since the 1930s. It has seriously depressed tax revenues while increasing costs to the government — including social safety-net programs such as unemployment insurance and spending by both the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations on stimulus programs and on bailouts of banks and automakers.
___
OBAMA: “This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office.”
THE FACTS: At one stage of the presidential campaign, Obama spoke of an earlier departure of troops than he ultimately achieved. “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009,” he said in a January 2008 Democratic candidates debate. But his pledge for most of the campaign was to withdraw combat troops within 16 months, a promise essentially kept.
THE FACTS: At one stage of the presidential campaign, Obama spoke of an earlier departure of troops than he ultimately achieved. “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009,” he said in a January 2008 Democratic candidates debate. But his pledge for most of the campaign was to withdraw combat troops within 16 months, a target missed just by a few months.
___
OBAMA: “Our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisers — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.”
THE FACTS: Although Obama said the U.S. commitment to Iraq’s future does not end with the combat mission, he made no mention of an emerging debate in Congress over paying for the diplomatic mission the State Department says is necessary. Plans for U.S. diplomatic posts in Iraq already are being scaled back as Congress sees the winding down of the war as a signal to invest elsewhere.
___
OBAMA: “Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who — under the command of Gen. David Petraeus — are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future.”
THE FACTS: Obama is reciting almost the exact language of the Bush administration’s rationale for the Iraq surge: to buy time and space for the Iraqis to reach political accommodations and to strengthen their own security forces. That‘s quite a change from Obama’s stand as a presidential candidate, when he criticized it. Obama seems to be embracing the troop surge logic now, even though it’s clear that the Iraqis have yet to achieve the necessary level of reconciliation to form an enduring government.
___
Associated Press writer Tom Raum contributed to this report.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
oldsalty1
Posted on September 8, 2010 at 7:31pmThis is sheer stupidity. As long as we are there and the Muslims have guns we will be in danger. No one in the military will just stand by and be shot at. Start calling this what it is. A still ongoing war. That is except in the mind of this fool we have for a president.
Report Post »GGGreeno
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 8:06amPerhaps an important part of this charade is the excuse to discontinue hazardous duty pay for our military in Iraq? After all , “combat” is over, so everyone is safe now! And with all this money saved, well, there are so many leeches left to buy votes from.
Report Post »Jimmy3
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 4:56amThis is just like Obamas Nobel prize from the liberals, a feather for doing nothing. He wants credit for the Iraq war yet blames Bush for everything bad about. He is now trying to get a feather for brokering the Middle East peace. He may get this coveted feather for his bonnet but how lasting and effective will it be? He wants a feather for healthcare reform but how effective will it be? He wants votes by paying off the unions and protecting the illegals from prosecution. I wish a chicken could sit on his head and satisfy his feather craving. At least we would benefit by the eggs and fertilizer from the chicken.
Report Post »Maggie1981
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:45amodrama said:
Report Post »“Despite the transition to Iraqi security forces, roughly 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq for counterterrorism, training and protection of U.S. personnel. They are to stay through the end of 2011 under an agreement with the Iraqis.”
Interesting – My Grandson, US Army based at Ft Hood, TX, called last night to tell us he was deploying in Jan 2011 to Iraq for the 3rd time. We know he is an expert at what he does, no question there; we do question why he is needed in Iraq again if ‘odrama’ said “the combat mission in Iraq is over”. Maybe our Grandson will retire as a general and be elected POTUS someday – Military experience should be required to be a POTUS – We certainly don’t have that now do we?????????
humbletoserve
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 3:43amplease pray for loved one still there and all special ops and contractors ie. firefighter paramedics advisors
Report Post »Old Fart
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 4:49pmThe “combat phase” isn’t over. They’re are at least 2 Stryker Brigades, armed to the teeth, left in Iraq (quote: Army Times). All Obama did was change the name, so he could say to his Lefty base that he’s kept ONE of his promises.
Report Post »anna8
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 4:47pmThank you Jonathon Seidl for the way you did this news,I liked how you went over with true facts of what OB really was saying.Keep up the good work!!
Report Post »Tony737
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 2:39pmDear Mr. President, repeat after me …
“Bush was right, I was wrong.”
Say it! … SAY IT!!!
Report Post »LovinUSA
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 6:13amYou have a better chance of being stuck by lightning my friend!
Report Post »sandysalt
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 2:27pmThe President wants everyone to stop thinking about Iraq because it was such a success for President Bush and a very sore spot of him. The fact that there are 50K troops still there is of no consequence to the current President, as the military is just little blue and green tools to him. The failure in Afghanstan will be all on him, unless by some miracle the military pulls off an upset with both hands tied behind its back. I wish all my fellow brothers in arms the best of luck with this President.
Report Post »ardua76
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 10:51amI am sure some of you remember seeing that story about Army combat brigades remaining in Iraq under different names. Got to love a good shell game, I guess. (By the way, anyone know how to add an avatar? When I click profile, it goes to the main page.)
TheMinisterofPropaganda
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 9:46amHe fulfilled a campaign promise. Now hold Obama to the same standard if leaving Iraq was indeed the right move. Thank goodness he wasn’t POTUS in 1950, as occupying West Germany was a bad idea with the Soviet Red Army just a few miles away. This move is going to haunt Obama. Question is, will the Media report it and the history books write this?
Report Post »A Patriot
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 9:39amWhat a joke. I hope this winds up haunting Obama as much as “Mission Accomplished” did Bush.
All this PROVES is the SURGE worked, Bush was right.
Report Post »zacharytcuster
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 9:35amThis president lied…again. No surprise there. This man makes himself look bad whenever he opens his mouth
Report Post »Hobie
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 9:20amSounded like another “Mission Accomplished” moment. However, in this case it wasn’t a banner used by a single combat unit (a ship) but the President of the United States actually telling the American people he’d done the deed himself and it was all over. It isn’t. Only idiots couldn’t put the first instance in context and understand it and, unfortunately, those same idiots can‘t see that it isn’t over yet.
Report Post »AmericanDawg
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 9:04amIf one listened closely last night he blamed the downturn on the economy on war expenses , so in essence (BIOB) Blame it on Bush …
Report Post »norbit
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 8:26amThe President looked like he was in a dentist’s seat last night, the way his body language showed he doesn’t believe in either one of these wars!
Whatever got us into the war, Bush handed this guy a stable, and dramaticlly more secure country.
All Obama had to do is NOT set a withdrawl date, and get the political leadership there under control, which was already underway (successful elections, etc.).
But Obama is an ideologue, so he puts in the like-minded, and totally incompetent lefty, Richard Holbrook to oversee the situation.
WELL HOW’S THAT SITUATION NOW?
Report Post »PaulH
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 8:26amI grew up in the 60′s, and clearly remember my very Republican father saying “either fight to win” in Vietnam or “get the hell out”. One would have thoght we learned our lesson there. For the life of me, I do not understand putting American service men & women’s lives in danger to prop up governments in the Middle East, to do the very Vietnam – like “advisory” thing, when the “mission” is supposed to be to eradicate Al Queda. Go in, take them out, come home. Let the people of Iraq and Afghanistan decide their own destinies after.
LovinUSA
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 6:11amThis should have been done a L-O-N-G time ago………..
Report Post »Mick1
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 8:19amMy prediction, Troops coming home and within a few months the Democrats will push to defund anything having to to with Iraq – ALA 1975
Report Post »kralspaces
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 8:03amI say bring all our troops home ASAP and put them on the border in preparations of a Mexican mission to remove all of the cartel drug lords. We should be rebuilding Mexico’s government and economy and leave the Middle East to the Europeans. This ‘one world’, stuff will never happen so let’s get serious about the Western Hemisphere.
Ellie
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 7:46amWho’s up for another 40 years of guard duty?…
Report Post »Come on I know there some ex-Korean post-war vets looking forward to long watches at a tall tower in beautiful downtown Bagdad… not!
dish
Posted on September 1, 2010 at 7:43amUnfortunately, with regard to Iraq, we’ve left the inmates in charge of the asylum. As bad as living conditions, etc. were under Saddam, he was the one keeping the country together and more or less straightened out. We cut off the chicken’s head and the body is still flopping around the hen house, even after all this time. I wish I had the answers for this problem, but I don’t. Hopefully someone out there does.