Share

Despite Obama's Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

by: Gareth Porter  |  Inter Press Service

photo
President Barack Obama arrives at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in February to speak about combat troop levels in Iraq. (Photo: AP)

    Washington - 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.

    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 specializing in US 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.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

He ran on opposition to the

He ran on opposition to the occupation of Iraq, but he wholeheartedly supports the unstated goal: American control of Iraqi oil resources. That's why we'll be there for a very long time, the cost in dollars and lives be damned. Whether the effort to maintain political cover by use of euphemisms will work remains to be seen. A sobering lesson for the youngsters who had stars in their eyes, and a reminder to us older folks never to believe any politician, ever.

As a committed liberal (or

As a committed liberal (or progressive if you prefer) who has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, I get rightly incensed by my fellow lefties who look for the lie or the double-dealing in everything that the asministration does - a particular shame in the current situation. All you are saying is that the President isn't doing exactly what YOU want him to do, regardless of its efficacy in the given situation. Well if you want his job, step up to it, otherwise, give him a chance. What makes anyone think that leaving only support-type troops behind can lead to the training of the Iraqi military and police? Of course the BCTs will stay - we can't have engineers training infantrymen anymore than we can have lawyers training doctors. Wake up folks, and take the President and Secretary Gates at their word. Same units - different mission. These are the only units we have, unless you are willing to let your sons and daughters serve, and to pay for them. Be delighted, as I am , that their mission will no longer be enemy-centric, but rather population and training-centric. That's what we should all be hoping for and be thankful for. As an old soldier who hates war, this seems to me the best possible approach for the immediate future. Sanford D. Cook, LTC USA (Ret)

Very disappointing, as was

Very disappointing, as was Obama's 'shell game' using pledged withdrawal from Iraq as cover for surging in Afghanistan. But surprised? No, I never liked his foreign policy, even during campaign, but endorsed his alleged willingness to sit down with any nation's leader. Must we forfeit that hope as well? Don't think Porter even covers the number of 'contract' workers (aka mercenaries) hired by US left behind in Iraq either, nevermind accumulating now in Afghanistan.

I've said before that Obama,

I've said before that Obama, in his foreign policy and economic policies, is a Milton Friedman "Chicago Boy". Like all neoliberal-neocons, he takes his orders from on high, from economic and banking moguls; from violent and hot tempered capitalist pigs; from those involved in the ever successful and lucrative empire building business. A truly progressive president would be gunned down in a minute in this country and replaced with a docile neoliberal hack; "fortunately," Obama need not worry about this. We are locked in vice a grip that has driven U.S. foreign policy since the inception of this country. It's not what America does, it's what it is, and while many things have changed domestically throughout the decades in this nation, this trait has not - and will not. At the core of this country's consciousness is an unspeakable arrogance, one that insists that America is better,superior, that America can and should "lead the world." And nothing could be more distant from the truth. We are a nation led by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but the profit-motive and its various expressions.)

aw, come on - everyone

aw, come on - everyone should have been onto this guy as soon as he said he was going to withdraw the troops his 1st day in office... blinded by their hatred for bush, no one actually stop and thought that electing a guy with no executive experience, little political experience, little economic experience, and no foreign policy experience might be a bad idea... oh well! looks like we'll be in the middle east for a loooong time! get comfortable everyone!

[At the core of this

[At the core of this country's consciousness is an unspeakable arrogance, one that insists that America is better,superior, that America can and should "lead the world." And nothing could be more distant from the truth. We are a nation led by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but the profit-motive and its various expressions.)] Cannot the American people recognize an IDIOT? What a sorry "STATE" this is!

Sure the American soldiers

Sure the American soldiers will be staying to protect the natural gas pipeline from Kazakstan to the sea which is why the bases are all located along its route across Afghanistan and coincidentally why the former Soviet Union invested so heavily in its efforts in the region. Nice when corporations can get US taxpayers to foot the bill and US soldiers to die for shareholder profits benefiting a few.

I tend to agree with LtCol

I tend to agree with LtCol Cook, but am apprehensive about the ambitions of Petraeus & the unspoken agenda of Odierno; I don't trust the career militarists to do anything except further their careers, which largely depend on making war somewhere. I don't mean to paint all flag-grade officers with that brush, as I believe there are some who genuinely love this country and take seriously its Constitution as a democratic republic. There are many others who lean toward fascist or military dictatorship, and pose a threat, in my estimation, to Obama and the rest of the nation should he move too quickly to reduce the power of the military-industrial-corporatists who have had unfettered charge of our government at least for the last 8 years. There are many moves Obama has made, especially in the economic sphere, that I don't like or agree with. Only 65 days into this administration, however, I'm willing to continue to support Obama's positions that he campaigned on, and exert whatever modicum of influence I have on my Congressman and Senators to also support his positions. I'm not starry-eyed about what he can get done, against enormous odds, but I'm willing to give him some slack to see how it goes. I am NOT willing to let the DINOs and Rethuglicans arbitrarily undermine his program and mandate.

Well, there you have

Well, there you have it...it's a matter of semantics. Bunch of liars, phonies, and frauds. I'm done. The American people have absolutely no say in how their money is spent and how the country is run.

President Ike told us that

President Ike told us that the Miltary Industrial Congressional Complex would run the government.

Mr. Rhodes has it right, and

Mr. Rhodes has it right, and there's a term for that sort of government: Fascism!

Expect Zeebruce is right:

Expect Zeebruce is right: it's all about oil; who said ANYONE (Obama??) was interested in freedom? Sgd: Ye Englishman

A former member of Obama's

A former member of Obama's campaign organization talked about his "sense of pace and timing". What is his goal here? Does he really want to reduce the military role in government? This kind of double talk weakens his position. 1:30 below is unfortunately right about "unspeakable arrogance"; it permeates the US government. If it continues this way the US will unite the whole world against it.