Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

You quote a statement from CI where he says that Bush ordered them to leave Iraq, then you say that Bush didnt "order" them to leave.
Cant you see the contradiction?

Bush did not order the UN inspectors to leave nor did anyone say he did.

If that isn't an "order to leave," I don't know the meaning of the word. Anyone with half a brain knows that's an order to evacuate; it's not a simple request.

I simply recognized CI statement to be a figure of speech in response to something I wrote.

mysteryman wrote:

You quote a statement from CI where he says that Bush ordered them to leave Iraq, then you say that Bush didnt "order" them to leave.
Cant you see the contradiction?

Considering that you have enormous difficulties in seeing the evident contradictions in your own positions, MM, I'm not sure if you are entirely credible when pointing out the contradictions of others.

joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

You quote a statement from CI where he says that Bush ordered them to leave Iraq, then you say that Bush didnt "order" them to leave.
Cant you see the contradiction?

Considering that you have enormous difficulties in seeing the evident contradictions in your own positions, MM, I'm not sure if you are entirely credible when pointing out the contradictions of others.

Please point out some of my contradictions, and provide my contradictory statements and I will be glad to clarify or explain them for you.

mysteryman wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

You quote a statement from CI where he says that Bush ordered them to leave Iraq, then you say that Bush didnt "order" them to leave.
Cant you see the contradiction?

Considering that you have enormous difficulties in seeing the evident contradictions in your own positions, MM, I'm not sure if you are entirely credible when pointing out the contradictions of others.

Please point out some of my contradictions, and provide my contradictory statements and I will be glad to clarify or explain them for you.

You can start here.

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 21:43 Post: 3316314 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joefromchicago wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


the original statement is not accurate, BCT's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Combat_Team
carry very few support people on their TOE. On the last deployment my wife's SBCT (Striker Brigade) had less than a thousand out of four thousand that could by any stretch of the imagination be called support. However it takes on average a one to two ratio, for every combat soldier there are two support soldiers in theater. Our Brigade had three thousand combat soldiers and less than one thousand support soldiers.....five thousand were in theater supporting the brigade but not on the brigade books. It is not that simple, as support soldiers often support a lot of different brigades, but the ratio is true and the numbers that I give fairly represent the situation.

Well, as I pointed out before:
In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE or at the division or corps level...
It may be that the 1301st Computer Technicians Battalion (motto: "We Do Our Bits!") is attached to the corps rather than to a particular brigade, but it's just silly to think that it or the 666th Mail Sorters Battalion (motto: "From the Depths of Hell We Stab at Thee -- With a Letter Opener!") will stick around in Iraq while the rest of the troops depart. I'm not sure what mysteryman could possibly be thinking -- maybe he thinks Obama has some kind of secret plan to occupy Baghdad with dental assistants and laundry workers -- but whatever it is it's just plain stupid.


Corps and divisions are for now administrative organizations only, the Army does not train or fight as divisions and corps. There are no such organizations in Iraq.Quote:
Multi-National Force - Iraq Major Units
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Iraq is divided into six major areas of responsibility maintained by forces from 24 countries. Below are the units that cover these areas. When available a link has been provided to the unit's homepage on the Internet.

Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq
MNSTC-I, commonly called "min-sticky", is responsible for organizing, training, equipping and mentoring Iraqi Security Forces throughout the country.

Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Gulf Region Division is responsible for helping the Iraqi government rebuild the country's infrastructure.

Multi-National Corps - Iraq
This is the Tactical Unit responsible for command and control of Operations in Iraq. Currently MNC-I is headquartered by the U.S. 3rd Army Corps forward deployed to Camp Victory, Baghdad. The following units report to MNC-Iraq:

Multi-National Division - Baghdad
MND-Baghdad is also known as Task Force Baghdad. Its major area of responsibility is the city of Baghdad. MND-Baghdad is headquartered by the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas.
Multi-National Division - North
MND-North is also known as Task Force Iron. Responsible for an area including the cities of Balad, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Mosul, and Samarra, MND-N is headquartered by the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division out of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Multi-National Force - West
MNF-W is headquartered by the U.S. II Marine Expeditionary Force. Their area of operations include the cities of Ar Ramadi and Fallujah.
Multi-National Division - Center
Multi-National Division - Center, also known as Task Force Mountain, assists Iraqi Security Forces with security and stability missions in the area south of Baghdad ranging from Najaf to Wasit provinces. MND-Center is headquartered by the 10th Mountain Division (Light) from Fort Drum, New York.
Multi-National Division - Center South
MND-CS covers an area that includes the cities of Diwaniyah, Afak, Al Hamzah. The division is headquartered by the Polish Military.
Multi-National Division - South East
MND-SE operates in the southern most part of Iraq, including the cities of Basrah, An Nasiriyah, Al Amarah. The division is headquartered by elements of the British and Australian militaries.
Multi-National Division - North East
MND-NE
Logistical Support Area Anaconda
LSA Anaconda is currently run by the U.S. 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary). 13 SC(E) is responsible for providing logistics support throughout the theater.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=27

Obama could remove every single Combat brigade but leave all of the above structure up and running to support the Iraq's, our "advisors" and to allow for the possible rapid return of combat brigades if the need arises, and still technically keep his word. I don't know what the head count would be, but I figure it would be north of 50K.

Now, as you can see, he gave a list of units in Iraq that Obama could leave in Iraq and still keep his word about removing all of the combat trooops.
I pointed out that with the exception of 2 units listed, ALL of the rest of them were combat units and that if Obama left those units behind he would not have kept his word to remove all combat troops.
To make it easy for you, I have highlighted the only 2 units on that list that are not combat units.

So in your mind, what is the contradiction?

mysteryman wrote:

Now, as you can see, he gave a list of units in Iraq that Obama could leave in Iraq and still keep his word about removing all of the combat trooops.
I pointed out that with the exception of 2 units listed, ALL of the rest of them were combat units and that if Obama left those units behind he would not have kept his word to remove all combat troops.
To make it easy for you, I have highlighted the only 2 units on that list that are not combat units.

So in your mind, what is the contradiction?

You started out by saying that Obama wasn't considering all of the non-combat troops in Iraq when he stated that he would be withdrawing all combat units (or troops or brigades or whatever). Indeed, you estimated that non-combat personnel outnumbered combat personnel by a ratio of 10-1 (which isn't the case in Iraq, but we'll pass over that for now). Then you said that there were only two non-combat units in all of Iraq. So which is it? Are there lots of non-combat personnel in Iraq, or are there only a few?

I specifically said that there were only 2 noncombat units on the list that hawkeye gave, I did NOT say that there were only 2 noncombat units in all of Iraq.
If you think thats what I said, please post that quote from me.

mysteryman wrote:

I specifically said that there were only 2 noncombat units on the list that hawkeye gave, I did NOT say that there were only 2 noncombat units in all of Iraq.
If you think thats what I said, please post that quote from me.

That list is exhaustive -- it covers everything that is in Iraq.

Obama could remove every single Combat brigade but leave all of the above structure up and running to support the Iraq's, our "advisors" and to allow for the possible rapid return of combat brigades if the need arises, and still technically keep his word. I don't know what the head count would be, but I figure it would be north of 50K.

He was wrong and I was responding to his mistaken statement.

mysteryman wrote:

He was wrong and I was responding to his mistaken statement.

How very disappointing. I know that okie, for one, is depending on your vast knowledge of military affairs to provide a foundation for his preconceived notions. Nevertheless, I forgive you this time.

How wonderful! Joefromchicago forgave him! Does that mean he can now point out contradictions of others? And, if so, when do you go back and react to C.I.'s statements?

joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

He was wrong and I was responding to his mistaken statement.

How very disappointing. I know that okie, for one, is depending on your vast knowledge of military affairs to provide a foundation for his preconceived notions. Nevertheless, I forgive you this time.

You forgive me for pointing out that someone made a wrong statement about the military???

Thank you for the absolution.

The shock is the response of the conservatives who are at awe to see Obama, the greenhorn, ahead of McCain, the senile presumptive republican candidate.

mysteryman wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

He was wrong and I was responding to his mistaken statement.

How very disappointing. I know that okie, for one, is depending on your vast knowledge of military affairs to provide a foundation for his preconceived notions. Nevertheless, I forgive you this time.

You forgive me for pointing out that someone made a wrong statement about the military???

No, you're forgiven for failing to point out Hawkeye's wrong statement about the military.

mysteryman wrote:

Thank you for the absolution.

Don't mention it.

I have made no wrong statements that I am aware of, the only thing that I am aware of is that I know more about the subject than you do. However educating those who don't wish to learn is a waste of my time.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I have made no wrong statements that I am aware of, the only thing that I am aware of is that I know more about the subject than you do. However educating those who don't wish to learn is a waste of my time.

I'll convey your message to mysteryman.

joefromchicago wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

I have made no wrong statements that I am aware of, the only thing that I am aware of is that I know more about the subject than you do. However educating those who don't wish to learn is a waste of my time.

I'll convey your message to mysteryman.

He can't read for himself?.....that's harsh. My comments were directed to you, you do understand this, correct?

cicerone imposter wrote:

The shock is the response of the conservatives who are at awe to see Obama, the greenhorn, ahead of McCain, the senile presumptive republican candidate.

Since you refer to Obama as a greenhorn, does it not seem odd that that qualifies in many voters minds for him to be the President?

I only wonder why the Democratic Party put him in the race?

In this big country of ours the Democratic Party could not find someone to run that would not be considered a "greenhorn"?

And, I guess you are showing how much you accept the youth oriented western culture by referring to McCain as "senile." Why he is only 71. He has years before he reaches full wisdom in some cultures.