Friday, September 24, 2010

Mission Accomplished? Darn Straight It Is

Just as President Bush got in trouble over declaring the end of "major combat operations"--meaning the end of conventional big unit maneuver warfare--on May 1, 2003, when fighting continued when terror and insurgency campaigns erupted after that date; President Obama is getting some grief for declaring the end of our combat role at the end of August:

Since President Barack Obama declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, U.S. troops have waged a gun battle with a suicide squad in Baghdad, dropped bombs on armed militants in Baquba and assisted Iraqi soldiers in a raid in Falluja.

Obama's announcement on August 31 has not meant the end of fighting for some of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel remaining in Iraq 7-1/2 years after the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

Yes, fighting has continued, but it is at a very reduced level of 15 incidents per day. I assume this means anything from an actual attack down to discovering an IED before it explodes. Iraq can handle this, but could use our help. We are providing that help. We should continue to provide the help for years or decades to come, even when there are no incidents per day.

At some point, some anti-war critics (and perhaps some conservative critics eager to score a point) will be tempted to slam the president for his own "mission accomplished" moment. This would be as foolish as the complaints about Bush purportedly claiming the war was over.