Obama's "non-combat" troops engaged in combat over the weekend. Twelve people were killed, and several others were wounded.
The Iraqi military requested help from U.S. troops and helicopters, as well as drones and explosives experts when a base in Baghdad was attacked.
The fighting came five days after the President proudly announced the end of combat operations in Iraq from his Oval Office stage, with people calling C-SPAN afterward, thanking him for ending the war. "Just under" 50,000 troops remain in Iraq with large numbers of mercenaries also coming in.
As the war in Iraq continues, the White House and the big cable news networks are using clever semantics in another war -- the one against reality in the fight for the perceptions of the American people. Many Americans want to believe that the President is making good on his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, while in truth he is simply overseeing it as the military moves Iraq's occupation into the next phase.
Right-wing factions of the mainstream media have used the fake end of the war to distract the American public with a debate over who should take credit for its "success" -- Bush or Obama. In this case "success" is defined as complete dominance over Iraq, and the installation of a government there that is subservient to the United States, ready as a launching ground for an attack on Iran if and when the U.S. and Israel decide to pull that trigger.
Since neither Bush nor Obama have engaged in combat in Iraq and have relied on many of the same military advisors to recommend and execute strategy, (and since the conflict obviously hasn't ended), neither of them are responsible for "success" in the war, just the war's perpetuation.
The American people have been promised a complete withdrawal in 2011 but U.S. and Iraqi commanders have said that Iraqi forces will not be ready to stand alone by then, so it is likely the U.S. will be personally guarding its interests in the country even after the deadline.