Skip to main content

Trying to Redefine Role of U.S. Military in Iraq.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: December 21, 2008
NEW YORK TIMES.

WASHINGTON — It is one of the most troublesome questions right now at the Pentagon, and it has started a semantic dance: What is the definition of a combat soldier? More important, when will all American combat troops withdraw from the major cities of Iraq?

The short answers are that combat troops, defined by the military as those whose primary mission is to engage the enemy with lethal force, will have to be out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, the deadline under a recently approved status-of-forces agreement between the United States and Iraq.
The long answers open up some complicated, sleight-of-hand responses to military and political problems facing President-elect Barack Obama.
Even though the agreement with the Iraqi government calls for all American combat troops to be out of the cities by the end of June, military planners are now quietly acknowledging that many will stay behind as renamed “trainers” and “advisers” in what are effectively combat roles. In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else.
“Trainers sometimes do get shot at, and they do sometimes have to shoot back,” said John A. Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel who is one of the authors of the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual.
The issue is a difficult one for Mr. Obama, whose campaign pledge to “end the war” ignited his supporters and helped catapult him into the White House. But as Mr. Obama has begun meeting with his new military advisers — the top two, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are holdovers from the Bush administration — it has become clear that his definition of ending the war means leaving behind many thousands of American troops.
One reason is that Mr. Obama is facing rapidly approaching, and overlapping, withdrawal deadlines, some set by the Bush administration and the Iraqis, and some set by him.
After June 2009 looms May 2010, 16 months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the month he set during the campaign to have American combat forces out of Iraq entirely. Next comes December 2011, the deadline in the status-of-forces agreement to have all American troops out of Iraq.
To try to meet those deadlines without risking Iraq’s fragile and relative stability, military planners say they will reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts. So although their role would be redefined, the dangers would not.
“If you’re in combat, it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re an adviser: you’re risking your life,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group. “The bullets don’t have ‘adviser’ stenciled on some and ‘combat unit’ on another.”
There are 146,000 American troops in Iraq, including service and support personnel. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, declined to tell reporters this month how many troops might remain in cities after the June 2009 deadline, and said the exact number still had to be negotiated with the Iraqis.
But some experts, like Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in at the Brookings Institution, argue that roughly 10,000 American troops should remain in Baghdad after next June, with thousands more in other cities around the country.
For his part, General Odierno made clear that the Iraqis still needed help — and that the United States would hardly disappear. “What I would say is, we’ll still maintain our very close partnership with the Iraqi security forces throughout Iraq, even after the summer,” he told reporters.
Military officials say they can accomplish that by “repurposing” whatever combat troops remain. Officially, a combat soldier is anyone trained in what are called combat-coded military occupation specialties — among them infantry, artillery and Special Forces — to engage the enemy. But combat troops can be given different missions. From the military’s point of view, a combat soldier is not so much what he is called but what he does.
For example, in an area south of Baghdad that was once called the “triangle of death” because of the Sunni insurgents there, a combat brigade of 4,000 to 5,000 soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division has been replaced with what the Army calls a transition task force of 800 to 1,200 troops with the mission of training and advising the Iraqi Army.
“It’s no longer Americans providing the muscle,” Colonel Nagl said. “Now it’s Iraqi patrols with a small group of American advisers tucked inside.”
Either way, no one expects the American presence to end soon, clearly not Defense Secretary Gates. When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview last week how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Mr. Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Delivering the Dead: How the World Watches Gaza Bleed.

  Delivering the Dead: How the World Watches Gaza Bleed “ I delivered a beheaded woman who was nine months pregnant. ” That’s not a horror-film script. That’s not medieval history. That is the testimony of an Australian medic standing in a Gaza hospital in 2025, describing what it means to “ practice medicine ” under Israeli bombardment. A nine-months-pregnant woman , decapitated , her body torn open so that the child she carried could be pulled out lifeless — and somehow this is still not enough to shake the comfortable democracies of the West into anything resembling a conscience. We should probably give the Nobel Prize for Creative Euphemism to the politicians who still call this “self-defense.” After all, there’s nothing quite as defensive as severing the head of an expectant mother and forcing foreign doctors to deliver her dead child in the rubble of what used to be a hospital . Bravo, civilization . The tragedy is not just the atrocity itself. It’s the smug perfo...

Docu Drama. The voice of Hind Rajab.

The Red Phone Rings, but the World Hits Mute The world just gave a 23-minute standing ovation —yes, twenty-three full minutes of clapping —for The Voice of Hind Rajab at the Venice Film Festival . Applause so long it could’ve filled Hind’s final desperate phone call to the Red Crescent. Bravo, humanity. We couldn’t save her when it mattered, but at least we can applaud her ghost. This is the new morality play: a five-year-old Palestinian child, trapped in a bullet-riddled car , whispering “please come, I’m scared ,” while surrounded by the corpses of her family. The Red Crescent tried . Paramedics drove toward her and were killed too . Israel buried them in silence . And the “ civilized world ”? It buried her in its news cycle . But now—don’t worry— we have a movie . Starring Hind’s voice. Directed by Kaouther Ben Hania. Produced by an ensemble of Hollywood conscience-bearers : Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Alfonso Cuarón, Jonathan Glazer, Jemima Khan , and others. ...

The End of Zionism? Welcome to the Funeral Nobody Wants to Admit Is Overdue

  Of course. Haaretz recently published an opinion piece by Ithamar Handelman -Smith titled “ Some Say It’s the End of Zionism, and I Say That’s All Right .” And what impeccable timing: as Israel carries out a near-two-year campaign of siege, famine, and bombardment in Gaza — slaughtering families, burying aid workers with their ambulances, and literally starving children to death — someone in Israel finally whispers the unspeakable: maybe Zionism, that 20th-century project of “ Jewish salvation ,” has outlived its moral shelf life. Bravo. The house is burning, bodies are scattered in the street, and the philosopher shows up with a garden hose . Zionism: Success Story or Crime Scene? Handelman-Smith argues that Zionism achieved its success : a Jewish state, a safe haven, a fortress against the ghosts of Europe’s crimes . But like every “ success story ” drenched in other people’s blood , it didn’t age well. What began as refuge turned into domination; what was called “ ...

Dockers of Conscience: Italy’s Brave Guardians of Gaza

  At a time when most governments avert their eyes , when institutions choose silence over principle, it is often the hands hardened by real work — the hands of dockworkers— that lift the banner of humanity. In Genoa , those hands belong to the members of the Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) and the dockworkers’ collective CALP ( Collettivo Autonomo Lavoratori Portuali ) . These are not new voices. For years they have stood where conscience demands —on the cold concrete of the docks , blocking ships laden with weapons destined for wars , refusing to let Italy’s ports be complicit in bloodshed. USB , born in 2010 out of grassroots struggles , has carried a proud history of international solidarity. Its members have consistently placed labor at the service of justice, from strikes against austerity to protests against militarism . CALP , forged in Genoa’s port , has a more direct history with Palestine: blocking Israeli-bound weapons , organizing boycotts, and declaring, time ...

Britain’s Recognition of Palestine: A Century of Complicity in Disguise.

So we’ve reached this moment: Keir Starmer’s UK “ recognises the State of Palestine. ” Applause lines up. Speeches made. Headlines dazzled. But behind the pomp, the guns, the exports, the intelligence, the training — history rings out in mocking laughter. Because Britain has been complicit since day one. This recognition is not redemption . It’s theatre. 1. The Original Sin: Balfour Declaration Let’s go back. Because if you don’t know your history, you’ll be fooled by the future. On 2 November 1917 , Arthur James Balfour (Britain’s Foreign Secretary) wrote to Lord Rothschild, and officially declared: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object , it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine , or the rights and political sta...