03 January 2010

Single-National Force-Iraq

Yesterday, the big news in Iraq concerned the official genesis of US Forces-Iraq, an acknowledgement of the fact that the US is currently the only intervening power in the Iraq War. This actually comes a few months after the British withdrew the last of their forces from Southern Iraq.

What amazed me is that it actually came as a shock to many that the US was, as of August, the only member of "Multi-National Force Iraq", as per this conversation.

Me: What classification should we use for this briefing? I know it says "releasable to Multi-National Corps-Iraq", but that really only means the US, since everyone else left.

Another officer: What do you mean? The British are still here.

Me: No, they left last month.

Me: Fuck my life...

Although there is reason for a bit of optimism: December 2009 is the first month in which no US forces have been killed in Iraq.


J. said...

What amazes me is how the US Army decides to host an event in December when the truth of the matter is that they've been a single-nation coalution for three months. What, is this a face-saving measure? Or were the conference rooms all booked until December?

"December 2009 is the first month in which no US forces have been killed in Iraq."
Because the US announced that it will soon LEAVE Iraq. I want to point to all the ridiculous conservative statements about how we couldn't announce an exit date because that would be "bad." Now that we're not going to make Iraq a 52d state, they leave us alone.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 01/04/2010 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.