

Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home - CaptainMorgan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_americans_head_home

======
gruseom
"Combat troops" is a circumlocution that has been coined for political
purposes such as the fiction of "withdrawal" from a country one is in fact
still occupying with 50,000 soldiers. This is well into the realm of Orwell.
I'm thinking not of _1984_ but of _Politics and the English Language_
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langua...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language)).

~~~
hga
Garbage.

Combat troops are trained to break things and kill people. They're equipped
with plenty of armored vehicles and artillery.

We may or may not be occupying Iraq, but if we've got e.g. mostly Military
Police (MP) then it truly means something significant has changed.

Let's put it this way: if we were to decide to depose the current Iraqi
government, would the troops we still have there be a good choice, let along
our first?

~~~
gruseom
Well since this is HN, let's agree on a way to decide the matter objectively.
If you can find historical usages of the phrase "combat troops" (as distinct
from just "troops") that are devoid of the political implication I mentioned,
I'll agree that the phrase is a factual one.

I'm finding it hard to establish similar criteria for "withdrawal", however,
because there are so many misleading usages of that word in the media right
now. I just saw "US Withdraws From Iraq" as a headline in Google News a few
minutes ago. Although the transitive usage of this verb can correctly describe
a partial drawdown (as in "he withdrew part of his objection"), the
intransitive usage cannot. This is a fact. It's also exactly the sort of thing
Orwell was writing about.

Also,

 _Garbage._

I hesitated to make my original comment and double-hesitated to respond to
this, but I'm giving it a try because I know you're a good commenter in
general. I think a serious discussion of this topic would be interesting. It
may be impossible, though, even here. If we can't discuss this civilly, let's
bail.

~~~
hga
One way to confirm what I'm saying is to look at the roles women are allowed
in the US Army:

The US Army has traditionally been composed of a number of branches, see this
Wikipedia list: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army#Branch_Establishment>

The major combat branches are Infantry, Artillery and Armor (originally
Cavalry). Women cannot serve in these and other related front line combat
branches, e.g. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military>.

Note for example that Sgt Leigh Ann Hester, the first woman to earn a Silver
Star for "direct participation in combat", was a member of a MP company
escorting a supply convoy. That woman who was captured and then rescued in the
hotter part of the war was a member of a successfully ambushed supply convoy.

Also go back to that first Wikipedia page and look for where combat vs.
support is used to describe. E.g. in the context of the new standardized
combat brigade system (Heavy (mechanized infantry or tank), Stryker (wheeled
death traps in the wrong terrain) and Infantry (light infantry or airborne)):

" _In addition, there will be combat support and service support modular
brigades. Combat support brigades include Aviation brigades, which will come
in heavy and light varieties, Fires (artillery) brigades, and Battlefield
Surveillance Brigades. Combat service support brigades include Sustainment
brigades and come in several varieties and serve the standard support role in
an army._ "

~~~
gruseom
Actually, I thought of a much easier way to decide the factual question.
Google web search is too clogged up with recent material, but Google book
search is another matter:

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&#...</a><p>Clearly the
phrase "combat troops" is not a recent coinage. I think I'll take your
technical point on that and decline to repeat myself about the rest.

