After an American soldier was killed in Iraq on Sunday following the U.S. miltary's removal of combat units from the country, we, and certainly the rest of the country, are left with a sour taste in our mouths and a yearning for what "removal of combat troops" really means - if anything.
For many, the declaration to remove all combat units from war-torn Iraq was a sign of hope that the fighting that began in 2003 would end. For others, it simply created an additional internal battle of semantics.
In a generation where our newest additions to the Gator Nation were 11 years old when the war in Iraq began - and still 11 when former President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" - many of us are just tired of witnessing our fellow Americans die in combat.
So when we were told the military and President Obama decided to remove all combat units from Iraq nearly four years after Saddam Hussein was executed, naturally we assumed that meant the American casualty count would begin to slow. Just for reference, the American military casualty count is at 4,406, according to a Department of Defense statistic released Monday.
And for many Iraqis, the departure of all combat units instills a sense of fear and apprehension that their own government and military is not yet capable of protecting its citizens. Above all, we are left with a sense of incompleteness.
Regardless of one's political views, every American can surely appreciate the fact that American casualties in Iraq will, indeed, decrease dramatically.
But more than anything, this American soldier's death Sunday shows the end is still not clear.
