What does an official end to U.S. combat operations mean for the 50,000 “non-combat” troops still in Iraq?
In a nutshell, who calls the shots. From the BBC (emphasis added):
US troops have been called in to help Iraqi forces battle insurgents who attacked an army base in Baghdad, killing 12 people, officials say. .[…] The same compound was attacked by al-Qaeda in Iraq three weeks ago, when more than 50 recruits were killed.
I must hold a different definition of what “non-combat” means. Because it seems clear to me that those 50,000 troops are still on a combat (ie shooting guns and such) mission. It’s just that the Iraqis are the ones who get to order them into action.
AP provides worrisome details:
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.
[…]Iraq’s political instability now appears to be threatening the country’s security. Six months after an inconclusive election, Iraq still has no new government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, is struggling to keep his job after his political coalition came in a close second to a Sunni-backed alliance in the March 7 vote.
That second graph is the concluding, almost throw-away graph, a reminder that what we broke in 2003 remains on life-support.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com