Associated Press Memo Warns: Do Not Report Iraq Combat Over
September 03, 2010 12:30 pm ET by Joe Strupp
Associated Press is advising its staff not to refer to the combat mission in Iraq as being completed.
An internal memo sent to global staff from Tom Kent, AP standards editor -- and obtained by Media Matters -- declares:
To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country's future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.
It also adds:
As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."
However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.
The entire memo is below:
Colleagues,
Many AP staffers are producing content that refers to the situation in Iraq. It might be a local story about Iraq veterans, an international diplomatic story that mentions the Iraqi conflict or coverage on the ground in Iraq itself.
Whatever the subject, we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid.
To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country's future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.
As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."
However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.
In addition, although administration spokesmen say we are now at the tail end of American involvement and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011, there is no guarantee that this will be the case.
Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad.
Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can't predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role.
Tom

















Or are you just like the people you criticize on the right? So hopelessly inured to your 'side' winning that you're willing to ignorantly accept whatever Obama's government says if it makes them look better?
If you'd simply claimed that the AP didn't report on the Iraq mission fully, or that they'd simply transcribed what Bush's government (and other governments around the world) were saying, I'd have thought your post relevant. But the facts are that there are still American combat troops in Iraq, taking part in fighting and going on missions. It's a fact. Covered up by different names, but they're doing the exact same things, not to mention all the private mercenaries in there doing the exact same thing they've been doing since the war started.
This isn't 'good news' for the Democrats being under-reported. This is REAL news unhindered by government propaganda or spin being reported. Just because the spin in this case happens to be coming from the Obama government, apparently it means that you're unwilling to try and see through it. JUST like what you no doubt accuse the other side of doing, time and again.
I guess they only do that during Republican administrations.
Here's the IRS filing. Scroll down to "News America Inc." on page 54.
And he's correct, combat operations have NOT ceased over there. We have many more contractors filling the boots of the troops coming home. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, this pullout is a sham. And since we want the press to do it's job, it's a start for the AP to attempt some accuracy here.
This article tells the tale:
http://www.truth-out.org/media-manipulates-end-war-iraq62826
I am not among those who thought Obama could work miracles. He inherited a sh!t sandwich, and there's no way he can make it taste good. Those who had unrealistic expectations are going to help drive the U.S. back into the arms of the Republicans. I'm sure we'll all enjoy reliving that experience.
I don't care if Obama can or cannot perform miracles. I never expected him to. What I DID expect of him was to tell the truth, especially since during his campaign he displayed such antipathy towards Bush and co. and their deceit. Expecting a politician to tell the truth and to keep the promises he was elected on is not an "unrealistic expectation". It's a simple judge of a man or woman, politician or not.
Obama and his administration is spinning and propagandizing here. They're saying something that is patently untrue. It's wrong, and the people that are making excuses for him and trying to cover for it by providing justification are wrong. Stop it, and stop trying to hold the spectre of the Republicans winning in some future election as a threat. Obama should do his job, keep his promises, and tell the truth. In short, he should be more worried about doing his job than keeping his job in two years. I think it's pretty obvious that he's not doing his job when he puts out totally untrue press releases when even the pentagon spokesman for Iraq admits that nothing has changed in Iraq beyond the re-naming of the troops stationed there.
Apparently holding politicians accountable for what they've promised is, according to you, 'naive'. Really? Interesting that the very thing that people screamed about 'hope and change' should now be discarded because it's naive to think that the political system operates on such things.
What in this statement is not true?
Paragraph #2: "This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security."- if the transition were complete, we would not need a single US soldier there.
Paragraph #3: "Our combat mission is ending..."- precisely the mistruth that the AP points out.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/03/iraq/index.html
I'm not answering for Manny, just throwing this in ;-)
Let me ask you, did you read the articles? Have you been following what type of war is being waged in Iraq? Have we sent a private army of mercenaries/contractors to Germany to take over security for our troops there?
Prashant Rao, Agence France-Presse
Report begins: "American troops were among those who fired back to repel a coordinated suicide attack on an Iraqi army complex that killed 12 people on Sunday, days after US forces officially ended combat operations in the country."
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/3224-us-troops-fire-back-as-suicide-bombers-kill-12-in-baghdad
Doesn't sound like combat operations have ended to me. Just because a pronouncement has been made by certain people does not mean that the day before the "official" end of combat operation is any different than the day after. This is not Germany. The only conflation going on here is you comparing Germany with Iraq. The only naivete is you thinking that what was deemed official has any bearing on the reality on the ground, and the only propaganda is what the administration and Pentagon are doing, not any posters here. I wish it were otherwise, but as you said, this is a sh!t sandwich. You said it yourself. And now we have essentially the same combat mission going on with a much more expensive (and still tax payer footed bill)army of private contractors.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/03/iraq/index.html