And brother, is the Obamagon spinning in eleven quantum dimensions to try and escape precisely that public perception:
“A 'Coalition' service member was killed in northern Iraq as a result of enemy fire,” the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement. “Further information will be released as appropriate.”
So, in combat, then?
The CENTCOM statement noted it is the policy of the military “to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities.”
Which would be the Obamagon, correct?
A U.S. military official said the American was killed while performing his duty as an adviser to Kurdish Peshmerga troops. He was killed by “direct fire” after Islamic State forces penetrated the Peshmerga’s forward line.
So not in combat, but as collateral damage? In which case, why was he (or she, or it) anywhere near an actual combat zone?
You can see that answer coming, cantcha?:
CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin reports the [soldier] killed was an American advisor to the Kurdish Peshmerga force. He was working with a Peshmerga unit two to three miles behind the front line during a battle with ISIS when some of the [jihadis]ts managed to get far enough into Kurdish territory to kill the American with a gunshot.
Or, put another way, the "front line" wasn't where the deceased American "adviser" thought it was, and despite his (or her, or its) "training and advising," the Kurdish Peshmerga are still less than militarily competent.
Here's the question nobody seems to be asking: Was this American adviser armed? Or had the Obamagon declared northern Iraq to be a "gun-free zone" in order to "officially" disarm ISIS?
“It was a real battle, not just [a] one-off raid,” reports Martin.
In which case, what were any American personnel doing anywhere near it since "officially" they have no combat role. Which would also argue for the American military adviser being unarmed.
A senior U.S. military official told CBS News that American F-15 [Eagles] and drones provided air support — twenty-three strikes in all — to the Peshmerga forces during what was described as an intense battle.
The senior U.S. military official didn't say if that air support was effective, of course. It goes without saying that it was too sparse and inadequate, or ISIS wouldn't have driven the Kurdish lines three miles back so quickly that unarmed U.S. advisers came under enemy fire, but "officially" still not in "combat".
So if this is not a "KIA", how would this deceased U.S. military adviser be categorized? A "victim"? And wouldn't that be excruciatingly symbolic of Operation Sitzkrieg?
Which doesn't make him (or her, or it) any less dead.