Charlie Company of the 2-5 Cav is one of the few U.S. units still operating inside Baghdad. After June 30th, most American troops left Iraqi cities and withdrew to larger bases on the perimeters.

But a limited number remain behind at smaller bases in urban areas to train and support Iraqis. Our Fox crew embedded this week with the 2-5 Cav at JSS Shield, a joint U.S-Iraqi base in Eastern Baghdad, not far from Sadr City.

The soldiers don't see much action anymore. No firefights, no mortars, no ambushes.

The Iraqi Army is in charge of basic security now. Charlie Company goes on joint patrols with the Iraqis and sometimes serves as a security detail for civil affairs teams working on economic reconstruction.

Since June 30th, the soldiers are down from about two missions a day to just one. And they're rarely in danger.

These days, the real enemy is boredom.

"A lotta boredom," says Pfc. Winston Coffey. "Trying to fill time, trying to keep your mind busy so you're not thinking about home."

How do they battle that boredom? Options are limited.

Almost every soldier had the same list of downtime activities: working out at the gym, playing video games in the rec room, and watching movies on DVD. JSS Shield is one of the few lucky bases that has wireless internet in every room, so the soldiers stay connected to family and friends with email, Skype and Facebook.

Six months ago, Charlie Company was always either patrolling, eating or sleeping.
It's a slower pace now, but a different kind of stress.

Capt. Christopher Clyde, the company commander, says, "With the added downtime it's even that much more important for leaders to get involved, talk with their guys."

The unit has about three months left in Iraq, but Capt. Clyde says leaders are already assessing every single soldier for possible stress as they adjust to life back home. They're looking at the risks of drinking, divorce, financial trouble and anger management.
They want to make sure every soldier stays mentally strong and fit for combat.

<link>

.....of "we won" Iraq

June 1, 2007

At what cost in lives and taxpayer's dollars?

Hand off the cost to the next administration and future taxpayers so they'll blame them, not those that decided to enter into the war.

Thanks guys and gals for fighting a war that was perhaps unnecessary, but rushed to in order to prop up the ego and image of a bunch of insecure chickenhawks fearful someone might think they didn't have balls or courage. Of course you all provided the balls and courage they tried to cash in on surreptitiously as being their own. Nevermind that Obama in one election won by a larger margin of victory or double than GWB did in two elections combined with almost 9 million more total votes cast in 2008 than in 2004.

Lets see, we stopped killing them and they stopped killing us, and despite the dead, you call that a victory??

Why don't you wonder over there for a holiday, wearing a "I love the USA" T-shirt, and see how much of a victory you have?

Won isn´t measured in cost. Won means you leave the country differently than jumping in choppers while enemy soldiers are firing on you and killing the civilians you leave behind. Won means that your men in uniform aren´t targets anymore but ¨bored¨ with being where they are.

If you believe your last comment, you need to read the LAW that ordered the President to use force to gain compliance with the cease fire that ended the Gulf War. Obama´s election victory isn´t relevent to the war in Iraq... he is now Commander in Chief and has a ¨good war, a war America must win¨ going on in Afghanistan. Let´s see if he can pull off a similar victory. It´s looking iffy at best.

Wulk:

Lets see, we stopped killing them and they stopped killing us, and despite the dead, you call that a victory??

Yes, that´s how war ended in Germany and Japan. How else do you describe victory?

Why don't you wonder over there for a holiday, wearing a "I love the USA" T-shirt, and see how much of a victory you have?

I would in Iraq in a heartbeat. Afghanistan is a pending situation where I would have to give it a lot more thought.

THE PROBLEM with liberals is they cannot stand that there be a military victory, especially for a war they don´t believe in. Independent, Democratic Iraq - that spells victory. Friendship isn´t the necessary end to war, but a country that can stand on it´s own and not be a threat to anyone else, nor be threatened by others.

TickleBob:

Won isn´t measured in cost. Won means you leave the country differently than jumping in choppers while enemy soldiers are firing on you and killing the civilians you leave behind. Won means that your men in uniform aren´t targets anymore but ¨bored¨ with being where they are.

If you believe your last comment, you need to read the LAW that ordered the President to use force to gain compliance with the cease fire that ended the Gulf War. Obama´s election victory isn´t relevent to the war in Iraq... he is now Commander in Chief and has a ¨good war, a war America must win¨ going on in Afghanistan. Let´s see if he can pull off a similar victory. It´s looking iffy at best.

Or the word "authorization"? In additon, you might try reading Section 3 again regarding what criteria was required WITH the authorization. Also what "threat" did Iraq poise to the United States and what evidence is there to prove such a threat? Also, U.N. resoilutions are UN resloutlions, not U.S. resolutions, Without UN Security Council approval, is the U.S. authorized to enforce U.N. resolutions unilaterally by its own determination WITHOUT events which fall under U.N. Charter Article 51.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

The United States was not under an armed attack from Iraq at any time before we invaded Iraq. A resolution was drafted by Spain, Great Britain and the United States to take to the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The resoultion was never tabled and you might have noted the controversy throughout the world when the United States (the President, after being authrorized to make the call himself) simply ignored the lack of U.N. support to enforce their resolutions and unilaterally decided the U.S. and its "coalition" (minus many of the same nations that joined to push Iraq out of Kuwait and helped pay for that effort) of mostly small Island nations who may have been coerced with some financial aid money and a few larger nations, would take it upon themselves to "enforce" U.N. resolutions without U.N. Security Council approval to do so. It would be kind of like Al Gore deciding to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 2000 presidential election and installing himself as president anyway and using force against anyone that would resist that idea.

How does one break a law to enforce a law and expect they haven't helped negate the purpose of and for law? The United States has the largest arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world. Based on that who is going to challenge it, but those who feel they have nothing to lose? If we, as citizens of our nation, allow a president or our government do do things in our name that are things we would not do or that give us, as an American citizen, a reputation for being less than honest and honorable, we should know we are not only going to be criticized for it, being lumped into the pot by some who don't or will not distinguish honorable Americans from dishonest and hypocritical ones. Once again, if lying is the sin, then it is just as sinful for Americans to lie as citizens of any other nation or for Republicans to lie as Democrats.

Our history is a checkered one when it comes to hypocrisy through certain periods. We declared all men to be created equal, yet for more than half a century after that declaration, all men were not equal in America, especially if you were black or one of those here before the Europeans arrived. I'm sure a fair numnber here can still remember the 60's vividly and the continued struggle for civil rights. That was not 250 years ago, but merely 50 years ago. When dod women gain the right to vote and do they not still struggle in many instances to gain equal pay for an equal position and responsibility in the workplace?

Throughout our history, the hypocrites were countered by honest and people with honor who did not stand by and watch their fellow countrymen who claimed to be righteous and good and pious take advantage of and harm people by cheating them, robbing them and lying to them. Battles withn battles occurred and sometimes truth, integrity and honesty won the battle, sometimes the crooks and good ole boys won and our country was worse off for it. Those battles still occur and people know who the hypocrites are, why and what they are doing and have and continue to speak up about them. We have been in a period where these hypocritcal have been winning the battles because for all they speak of values and morals in order to gain the trust of others, the only thing that really counts to them is greed and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill to get what they want. It has been a sad period for our nation and one we are now struggling to come out of the collapse caused by the unsustainability of greed, for all the difficulty in changing mindsets and our culture away from. Until we get back to honesty and integrity and values that do not revolve around materialism, we will not return to any sort of prosperity (not necessarily matreial or cash) soon and if we simply return to a materialistic greedy existence that is unsustainable, each subsequent collapse will tear us further apart than we have are already.

One might think they have "won" something in the short term, but lost much greater things in the long term.

The President followed US Law. The United Nations be damned, he isn´t elected to protect the United Nations, but to protect American Citizens and to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Law of the Land.

PUBLIC LAW 107-243

<link>

None of which has anything to do with qualifying WINNING IN IRAQ, which has been accomplished!

For a lawyer, you´re a real dumbass. Read the Public Law I referenced above. WMDs were a small part of a lot of reasons, that your lover Bill Clinton agreed needed doing until Hillary announced she was running for President. Then Bill flipped, but he certainly supported GWBush in the outset as did a vast majority if the U.S. Congress!

As Wulk just said,

Lets see, we stopped killing them and they stopped killing us, and despite the dead, you call that a victory??

Why don't you wonder over there for a holiday, wearing a "I love the USA" T-shirt, and see how much of a victory you have?

WHY DON'T YOU, CHICKENHAWK COWARD? Before even MA stops believing in you?

Jackshep

Hey Knot, I don´t address shep directly, he´s a stalking faggot, but you can tell him I don´t need to go to Iraq to be bored. He can read, I believe, so tell the dumb mutherfucker to read this... and leave Mary Anne out of his ignorant arguments and perversion...

* * *

Charlie Company of the 2-5 Cav is one of the few U.S. units still operating inside Baghdad. After June 30th, most American troops left Iraqi cities and withdrew to larger bases on the perimeters.

But a limited number remain behind at smaller bases in urban areas to train and support Iraqis. Our Fox crew embedded this week with the 2-5 Cav at JSS Shield, a joint U.S-Iraqi base in Eastern Baghdad, not far from Sadr City.

The soldiers don't see much action anymore. No firefights, no mortars, no ambushes.

The Iraqi Army is in charge of basic security now. Charlie Company goes on joint patrols with the Iraqis and sometimes serves as a security detail for civil affairs teams working on economic reconstruction.

Since June 30th, the soldiers are down from about two missions a day to just one. And they're rarely in danger.

These days, the real enemy is boredom.

"A lotta boredom," says Pfc. Winston Coffey. "Trying to fill time, trying to keep your mind busy so you're not thinking about home."

How do they battle that boredom? Options are limited.

Almost every soldier had the same list of downtime activities: working out at the gym, playing video games in the rec room, and watching movies on DVD. JSS Shield is one of the few lucky bases that has wireless internet in every room, so the soldiers stay connected to family and friends with email, Skype and Facebook.

Six months ago, Charlie Company was always either patrolling, eating or sleeping.
It's a slower pace now, but a different kind of stress.

Capt. Christopher Clyde, the company commander, says, "With the added downtime it's even that much more important for leaders to get involved, talk with their guys."

The unit has about three months left in Iraq, but Capt. Clyde says leaders are already assessing every single soldier for possible stress as they adjust to life back home. They're looking at the risks of drinking, divorce, financial trouble and anger management.
They want to make sure every soldier stays mentally strong and fit for combat.

<link>

Read Section 3 part B of the referenced "U.S. Law". Then read public Law 93-148 and tell us where the "imminent" threat from Iraq was iun order to meet the requirements of the act?

The President is not elected to determine when to go to war and if he is given authorization to do so, he must do so under the requirements of the authorization which point out that a threat to the United States MUST me imminent, not maybe, not "we think", but I-M-M-I-N-N-E-N-T. If you can read you might notice how many times the word "imminent" is mentioned and in what context and where it is required.

You seem to forget Tickle that for the authorized action to occur, there had to be an imminent threat. We're still looking for those WMD Mr. Bush and company "knew" were there which would be the only thing that would prove to be a discernable threat from Iraq. It is also clear that the determination was handed over to the president from the Congress. That in itself has been a subject of Constitutionality since the War Powers Resolution became law in 1973. The reason? It puts the final determination in the hands of one person, rather than Congress and when that one person makes the determination based on faulty or a lacking premise, it is perfectly logical and acceptable for members of Congress who entrusted the president to make the right determination to feel he did not in the end, You might have noted that is what the entire controversy over Iraq has been about among other things. Some believe the Constitution does not allow Congress to hand the determination of declaring war over to the president for reasons that are currently obvious.

Once again, I will ask you to define "win" or "won" in the context of Iraq? A month and a half after we invaded Iraq, GWB stepped aboard an aircraft carrier and spoke in front of a banner that said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and regardless of the lame excuse that it was meant to refer to 'major combat operations' far more Americans and Iraqis perished after that speech than before it and what's the point of "celebrating" major combat operations if you are to remain for another six years and see thousands more deaths from operations that may not have been major combat operations, but were related to the entire situation?

I you want to feel we have "won" something in Iraq, go right ahead. The people in Iraq probably feel otherwise.

I have seen you and others of the "moral" righteous along with those you call "lberals" use such language. Does it somehow enhance your standing? Have you inspired or impressed someone with such use? Does it make you feel "manly". Maybe it pulls in the ladies?

I read the article the first time you posted it.

We have "won" Iraq because our soldiers now have downtime and are bored because they aren't being shot at in their enclave?

Of course in Iraq we have been fighting a huge organized armed force backed by one of the top industrial nation's government and large budget haven't we? There was never any down time for any of the soldiers in Iraq prior to this right?

I would suggest we wait on claiming any sort of "success" or "win" in Iraq for the reasons mentioned above in another post and for these reasons.

I don't believe wars are ever won as they leave behind mostly death and destruction no matter who "beats" whom and they aren't games to be taken lightly as a sporting event where a "win" is the objective and a score card kept. People died, people were maimed and have been disabled for the rest of their lives. Each side will claim some participants were "heroes". To the dead hero, such a designation does not bring them back to life. It does not make up for the life they might have lived nor the life their children will be without. It does not make them macho or brave, it makes them dead and they will never know or care that someone thought of them as such. Without hero worship, medals, awards or the promise of 72 virgins, wars would be stripped bare of anything that would attract anyone to be tempted to attend them. When young and looking for an identity and some importance many of us were and are inspired and drawn by the portraits of glory and heaven, the flag waving and the tears in the eyes and pride and then comes the reality and still some hold on to the imagined glory and "honor" to block out the stark dark reality and hell that is war where there is only living hell or the darkness of death and the dependence upon those going through the same to try to keep you from going from the living hell to the darkness of death where there are no "wins" or ticker tape parades to count or take part in.

War is not a game to win, lose or glorify. It is a living hell where people die and a lot of living and surviving participants are not particularly pleased or necessarily proud to be a part of, despite their "side" completing what they practically set out to do, whether it is it to gain something or simply not to lose what they have. Who can be proud of taking another human life, even in defense?

Our guys aren´t even on patrol anylonger, they have turned the country´s security over to Iraqi forces and are being withdrawn. It is up to Obama´s leisure to bring them home or shift them to Afghanistan. We´ve won the war(s).

First against Saddam

Second against the terrorist who called themselves insurgents.

Now they fight to hold what they can in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama has a whole new strategy for Afghanistan, the war we ¨must win¨ -words from his own mouth and please don´t tell me words don´t matter.

Let´s see if he can do the job!?!

There is no one left in Iraq for America to fight. Even Obama knows that. Do you expect al Qaeda to come running down from the mountains in Pakistan? Do you think al Qaeda can get the Taliban to allow them to restart the camps that brought the wrath down on them in the first place, those Arabs?!?

How exactly do you define victory in an armed conflict???

What is it you hope for so that you can claim we did not win?