Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq Despite Obama's Vow

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq Despite Obama's Vow stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

Inter Press Service   |  Gareth Porter   |   April 14, 2009 at 04:08 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Iraq Us Troops

WASHINGTON, Mar 25 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.

A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."

Obama's decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010.

National Security Council officials declined to comment on the question of whether combat brigades were actually going to be left in Iraq beyond August 2010 under the policy announced by Obama Feb. 27.

Story continues below
advertisement

The term that has been used internally within the Army to designate the units that will form a large part of the "transition force" is not "Advisory and Assistance Brigades" but "Brigades Enhanced for Stability Operations" (BESO).

Lt. Col. Gary Tallman, a spokesman for the Joint Staff, confirmed Monday that BESO will be the Army unit deployed to Iraq for the purpose of the transition force. Tallman said the decision-making process now underway involving CENTCOM and the Army is to determine "the exact composition of the BESO".

But the U.S. Army has already been developing the outlines of the BESO for the past few months. The only change to the existing BCT structure that is being planned is the addition of advisory and assistance skills rather than any reduction in its combat power. The BCT is organised around two or three battalions of motorized infantry but also includes all the support elements, including its own artillery support, needed to sustain the full spectrum of military operations.

Those are permanent features of all variants of the BCT, which will not be altered in the new version to be deployed under a "transition force", according to specialists on the BCT.

They say the only issue on which the Army is still engaged in discussions with field commanders is what standard augmentation a BCT will need for its new mission.

Maj. Larry Burns of the Army Combined Arms Centre at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, told IPS that Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey directed the Combined Arms Centre, which specialises in Army mission and doctrine, to work on giving the BCTs the capability to carry out a training and advisory assistance mission.

The essence of the BESO variant of the BCTs, according to Burns, is that the Military Transition Teams working directly with Iraqi military units will no longer operate independently but will be integrated into the BCTs.

That development would continue a trend already begun in Iraq in which the BCTs have gradually acquired operational control over the previously independent Military Transition Teams, according to Maj. Robert Thornton of the Joint Centre for International and Security Force Assistance at Fort Leavenworth.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command, has issued Planning Guidance calling for further refinement of the BESO. After further work on the additional personnel requirements, Casey was briefed on the proposed enhancement of the BCT for the second time in a month at a conference of four-star generals on Feb. 18, according to Burns.

Other names for the new variant that were used in recent months but eventually dropped made it explicitly clear that it is simply a slightly augmented BCT. Those names, according to Burns, included "Brigade Combat Team-Security Force Assistance" and "Brigade Combat Team for Stability Operations".

The plan to deploy several augmented BCTs represents the culmination of the strategy of "relabeling" or "remissioning" of BCTs in Iraq that was developed by U.S. military leaders in the wake of the surge of candidate Barack Obama to near-certain victory in the presidential election last year.

Late last year, Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM chief, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, were unhappy with Obama's pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months. But military planners quickly hit on the relabeling scheme as a way of avoiding the complete withdrawal of BCTs in an Obama administration.

The New York Times revealed Dec. 4 that Pentagon planners were talking about "relabeling" of U.S. combat units as "training and support" units in a Dec. 4 story, but provided no details. Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 U.S. troops would be maintained in Iraq "for a substantial time even beyond 2011".

That report suggested that the strategy envisioned keeping the bulk of the existing BCTs in Iraq as under a new label indicating an advisory and support mission.

Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen discussed a plan to re-designate U.S. combat troops as support troops at a meeting with Obama in Chicago on Dec. 15, according a report in the Times three days later.

Gates and Mullen reportedly speculated at the meeting on whether Iraqis would permit such "re-labeled" combat forces to remain in Iraqi cities and towns after next June, despite the fact that the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement signed in November 2008 called for all U.S. combat forces to be withdrawn from populated areas by the end of June 2010.

That report suggests that Obama was well aware that giving the Petraeus and Odierno a free hand to determine the composition of a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops meant that most combat brigades would remain in Iraq rather than being withdrawn, as he ostensibly promised the U.S. public on Feb. 27.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Read more from Inter Press Service.

WASHINGTON, Mar 25 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 mon...
WASHINGTON, Mar 25 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 mon...
Loading...
 
 
Comments
72
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- Kaviraj I'm a Fan of Kaviraj 45 fans permalink
photo

2. The reaction of the people will gain him the votes for a second term to firmly establish his plans for healthcare and renewable energy, green technologies and other environmental incentives.
However......
It looks to me that the troops have to stay in Iraq, because there is nothing to do for them at home. With the unemployment rate sky-rocketing, and the chances for employment going down the drain, it may look like a "smart" move. Sending more troops is in that sense also a "smart" move. Having a 150.000 men employed for 10 billion a month is not a smart move. Any business that runs with that kind of overhead and an unsellable product, will go bankrupt very soon.
As i said. 10 billion a month is a helluva lot of money that can create an enormous amount of work for an enormous amount of people. Many more than 100 or 150,000 men. Its product will also have a lasting value for generations to come. Is Obama willing to pay that price, which is a 1000 fold the original investment?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 03/26/2009
- Kaviraj I'm a Fan of Kaviraj 45 fans permalink
photo

"I have had quite enough of war! After having seen one war that was more than enough!

Thomas Jefferson.

That should be Obama's motto on this debacle that is Afghanistan and Iraq. It saves the lives of troops - always in short supply. It saves a packet of money - 10 billion a month. It may save Obamas' political neck. People will wake up to the fact they have been had. They will soon forget that it was not Obama that created this mess. He is supposed to prevent that happening.
If you get mugged on the street you do not go to the ATM and hand out more cash.
Same with banks and insurance companies. Theyrobbed the world blind; don't throw good money after bad.
They don't need bailouts, as Goldman Sach announced boldly when it learned of the oversight that will come with the money. The propping up of the banks is a double ponzi scheme, in which they planned to take out the government - the American people - too, after first having robbed that same citizenry blind already.
He can turn things around with work for the common man, with a monthly injection of 10 billion dollars! And I doubt he can with what he has. He wants to save America? Bring home those troops! Get the oversight laws for banking an business in place, and bring them back to what is their purpose - helping little people and small businesses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 03/26/2009

Time for another "talk to the nation". Is this true or false?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 AM on 03/26/2009
- WilliamL I'm a Fan of WilliamL 32 fans permalink

It goes along the lines of not believing everthing one hears.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 03/26/2009
- swanie I'm a Fan of swanie 39 fans permalink
photo

I could argue that it goes along the lines of NOT BELIEVING ANYTHING

you hear from ANY politician.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 03/26/2009
photo

LOL what did you people think the president would be ignorant enough to leave troops in a war zone that cannot protect themselves. Boy you people are naive who do you think trains troops for combat little sisters of the poor? Like usual you all miss the main point their mission status will change.

I can see all you tactical geniuses you would leave all the desk jockeys, cooks, army band, motor pool, drivers, engineers, doctors, nurses in Iraq with ZERO security.

It's the MISSION that matters. Every peacekeeping mission in the world has "combat troops". They aren't combat troops if they don't go out and engage in combat missions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 03/26/2009
- Babysnake I'm a Fan of Babysnake 11 fans permalink
photo

I think we all understand your comment, but you are not addressing the main point.
The promise was all combat troops would be out. Apparently they will not be.
So, it was a lie.
That is the point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 03/26/2009

Obama said all combat troops would be out in 16 months when he ran for president. Now that he is president he added two months as a compromise with the military and now all U.S. troops will be out in 18 months. Explain to me how that is a lie?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 PM on 03/27/2009

You mean soldiers that stay in Iraq will still be soldiers? Shock! Maybe people weren't listening, but when Obama was running for president he said he would pull out troops in 16 months. Even after the majority were pulled out there would still be some forces left behind to do things like training and counterterrorism. Guess what, now he's going to get them out in 18 months, and after the majority leave there will still be 35,000-50,000 there until the Status of Forces Agreement says all U.S. forces have to be out at the end of 2011. Now the U.S. commander in Iraq Ge. Odierno has been pushing to keep some U.S. troops there beyond that deadline, but that would require a request by the Iraqi government, and the White House has said they're not for that. It's like no one actually listened to what Obama said/says. P.S. - Guess what, when all the troops are out there will still be a U.S. Embassy in Iraq with U.S. Marines as guards. Must be part of that plot the liar Obama is all trying to sell us. LOL.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 AM on 03/26/2009
- dadw5boys I'm a Fan of dadw5boys 281 fans permalink
photo

BIG OIL is going to try everything they can to keep Americans troops in Iraq till the Iraqi Government get control of the country and Big Oil is secure in place there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 03/26/2009
- Ty90 I'm a Fan of Ty90 4 fans permalink

Obama is a fraud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 AM on 03/26/2009
- AN2009 I'm a Fan of AN2009 4 fans permalink

Come on. He's just a politician...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 03/26/2009
- mick7191 I'm a Fan of mick7191 36 fans permalink
photo

No he's not. Bush was the fraud. An abject failure in the business world and a propped up puppet of the far right. Just like Reagan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 AM on 03/26/2009
- swo68 I'm a Fan of swo68 14 fans permalink

"But military planners quickly hit on the relabeling scheme as a way of avoiding the complete withdrawal of BCTs in an Obama administration."

Holy crap. Now that this is being more widely reported, Obama is going to find out!

"That report suggests that Obama was well aware that giving the Petraeus and Odierno a free hand to determine the composition of a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops meant that most combat brigades would remain in Iraq rather than being withdrawn, as he ostensibly promised the U.S. public on Feb. 27."

Oh, nevermind, he already knows.

Hope for change.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 AM on 03/26/2009
- Hipployta I'm a Fan of Hipployta 3 fans permalink
photo

This article is extremely misleading. We were always aware that the remaining 35,000 to 50,000 (from 160,000) troops would be "transitioned" into a sustainment/training force. Did they think the soldiers making up these units were going to appear out of mid-air?

I really dislike this "gotcha" jounalism that pervades our media and is simply untrue. It's annoying and distracts from the real issues.

Aside from all that they just phoned it in on this article.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 03/26/2009

The problem is that there aren't supposed to be as many as 50,000 combat troops left in Iraq after 18 months. It contradicts Obama's campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq.

The US is supposed to be done with Iraq. We're not supposed to protect them from the Iranians. We're not supposed to intermediate militarily in Iraq's internal affairs. We're not supposed to provide security. We're supposed to leave training personnel, an administrative component, and just enough combat strength to support them if there's trouble.

The whole reason why Iraq is going quiet (besides much better non-military operational policies) is that the Iraqis perceive that the US will get the hell out of Iraq more quickly if there's less internal strife. The instant there's US combat teams in operations supporting the Iraqi gov't, that peace is going to fall apart.

I'm pretty disappointed with Obama again. There shouldn't be more than 21,000 troops in Iraq (6 combat brigades), including the trainers. And if things go sour, we should still pull out, ala Vietnam. The United States is not the world's policeman or the oil companies' fixer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 03/26/2009

Obama has a chance to be an outstanding President.

But he kept too many Bush men on the job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 AM on 03/26/2009
- JZ735 I'm a Fan of JZ735 22 fans permalink

Although this is from NY Post, and some of it is hogwash, especially about Hillary, yet some of it is exactly right about Obama's foreign policy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_foreign_failures_161154.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 AM on 03/26/2009
- S1m0n I'm a Fan of S1m0n 103 fans permalink
photo

Nope, it's all bilge.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 AM on 03/26/2009
- henrywolff I'm a Fan of henrywolff 35 fans permalink
photo

Shocker.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 PM on 03/25/2009
- PlayTOE I'm a Fan of PlayTOE 29 fans permalink
photo

This sounds like a plan from the held-over-from-Bush joint chiefs of staff ... not a plan from Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 03/25/2009
- TJCole I'm a Fan of TJCole 167 fans permalink
photo

"It's all according to what the meaning of is....is..!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 PM on 03/25/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect