What "victory" looks like.

This...

BAGHDAD — A string of bombings killed 37 people Sunday in Iraq's deadliest day since Aug. 31, when President Barack Obama said the U.S. military's seven-year-old combat mission there had ended.

…and this...

…the 50,000 U.S. soldiers who remain in Iraq, far from merely "advising and assisting" Iraqi forces, as the Obama administration has described their new role, are still needed on the battlefields as insurgents try to exploit the diminished American military presence and the six-month political stalemate that's failed to produce a new Iraqi government since the country's March 7 elections.

In fact, it looks a lot like "war." With, you know "combat operations."

At least we "won," I guess.

From the "Yes, but…" file.

President Obama...

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

Well done, Mr. President, yes, but not particularly well said. Any timetable for withdrawal is an improvement, but the combat mission will end when no American troops are in harm's way in Iraq. We may be withdrawing combat arms brigades first, but will we deny the "training," "support" and "security" forces left behind hazardous duty pay? I can't imagine doing so. Will we still be awarding Purple Hearts and other combat decorations when circumstances call for them? I assume we will.

Will the trainers send their trainees into the field unaided and unsupervised, or join them in the field? When convoys and installations are attacked, will our troops take cover and call the local authorities, or will they act in self defense? Save some medical personnel and military chaplains, every man and woman in uniform is a combatant, regardless of their MOS.

As long as we have combatants occupying Iraq, we have a combat mission. To pretend otherwise demeans the service of those who remain.