Troops gone, US to rely on 7,000 contractors in Iraq: report

Troops gone, US to rely on 7,000 contractors in Iraq: report

rawstory.com

The US State Department is to more than double the number of security contractors it employs in Iraq to around 7,000, filling a gap left by departing troops, the New York Times reported Thursday.

The newspaper said the contractors would be deployed to defend five fortified compounds that will be left behind as US combat forces exit Iraq and the US mission switches from a military-led to a civilian-headed operation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It has been clear for a long time now that this war won't end, just because Obama says it has, nor is it their intent to end the war. Instead, the government is relying on the ignorance of the American people by simply renaming the mission, sending a few troops home and renaming the remaining troops to something that sounds a little more humane, though there mission will essentially be the same. Basically, the only thing changing is the term used to define the conflict, yet Americans, as expected, are buying this hook, line and sinker. It truly is embarrassing that such an insult to our intelligence is going unchallenged.

Now, we are learning that thousands of mercenaries will be taking place of the troops being pulled back so not only will this cost the tax-payers more money, but brutal tactics can now be deployed, under the radar and above the law.

So, all in all, the war is not ending, not even by a long shot and instead, the American people are being fooled into accepting that Obama is keeping good on his promise, when in all reality, he is just screwing us even more than we have already been screwed. The gig is up for anyone with two brain-cells left to rub together but the joke is on all of us.

--airspoon

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm very confused. How many troops pulled out exactly?

A month or so ago there were 60K-65K troops there.

Sixteen days ago, the report was that 50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.

I thought only combat troops left and we were leaving 50K there, along with the PMCs?

And let's remember this from early July too. Obama: 'Civilian expeditionary force' can aid wearied troops

[edit on 8/19/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I think that by renaming them "combat advisers" or some such it means that they are "gone". Although in reality they remain there.

That's the way I take it.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


The term combat troops is misleading at best. The mission and troops are only going to be renamed, in an effort to fool the American public while the ultimate mission in Iraq is going to stay the same.

--airspoon

Well, they ain't fooling me at all.

My childhood best friend is on his way to another deployment in Iraq that is supposed to finish out his career (another 14 months).

He is very happy not to be going to Afghanistan, but all this "Leaving Iraq" stuff is all fluff for the sheep.

On another note: I still think it's BS, but gee...I'm sure glad those righteous, virtuous, model citizens working for private contractors are taking control over there...Hyeah, right.

Is it possible to be any more sarcastic via text? I'd be interested in learning how in this case. :/

All they are doing is replacing military personnel with mercenaries (private military).

Tell me, what is the definition of contractor?

So, they beef up the contractors (mercenaries) and send the military units to? Looks like right next door to the new bases there.

Looky here at my right hand.

While my left is doing this.

reply to post by airspoon


Yep. Pretty much. The big deal they made about it yesterday was more for psychological purposes. Even I was starting to get confused by all the numbers being thrown around and for a minute began to think some miracle had occurred. But nothing to see here. SSDD.

I have a feeling the bill that was passed to put Civilians under the work of the Government will also be used in the mix of leaving "Private Security."

www.govtrack.us...

The above is Part of the "Slave Bill" as some people have come to call it.

This should be interesting....forced to work in Iraq as "private security" what a load of horse $hit.

I concur with all of you. As I was driving to work this morning I was listening to the radio and the news was of course a cut from the "celebration" marking the end of combat operations in Iraq...well I almost went off the road and had coffee blow out my nostrils making a rorschack on my dashboard looking much like a donkeys posterior.

We leave 1/3 of the greatest number of troops we ever had in Iraq, and call it the end....I dont think so, esopecially when on the other side of Iran we have another 50-100k soldiers and contractors, lets not mention the carrier groups stationed in the gulf and the med.

I think they must "KNOW" we are generally ignorant as a mass population, or they wouldnt risk these kinds of shows of propaganda. They must know that there are some who know better....oh now I get it they took care of we intelligent people by making us look like nutjobs, while they fleece the sheep...aaaah America

reply to post by Shadowfoot


Your right, it's almost insulting, how dumb they must think we are some times, though all I have to do, is think back to the time when the public bought the whole "trickle-down theory" and I must concur with government. You have to ask yourself, if you were in their position, would you not do the same thing? It's not even really that I blame government, so much as the people. If I drop my child off at a convicted sex-offender's house, the resulting actions would be my fault.

--airspoon

So are these "contractors" heroes "fighting for our freedom"?

2nd

reply to post by tonypazzo


Some are, some aren't... Although, one person's hero is another's terrorist. With that being said, if some people (often teenagers) choose to leave their comfortable lives behind for a world of little pay, strict rules and dangerous consequences, all because they feel they are needed in order to preserve the way of life for their neighbors, then I think they most likely qualify for the title of hero. While other teenagers choose to sleep late, party, drink, get high, have sex and take from the system, many teenagers give that all up for blood, sweat, tears, hardship, loss of life or limb and freedom, all for what they believe to be selfless service, then I think it's safe to call them heroes. Your little dig at our soldiers is futile, unwarranted and innaccurate.

--airspoon