The question of whether the U.S. will send combat troops into Iraq has become a tortured debate over what terms such as "ground troops" actually mean.

U.S. civilian and military leaders appear to be describing the same mission against Islamic State militants, but they end up sounding as though they are contradicting each other. The point of confusion: whether special operations forces are considered "ground troops."

On Wednesday, President Obama reiterated that the 1,600 U.S. troops ordered to Iraq will not have a combat role, but they will help "advise and assist" Iraqi forces. "I want to be clear," he told service members gathered at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists."

Obama vowed that the U.S. will use airpower against the Islamic State and train and equip allies, but will not use conventional forces to re-invade Iraq.

"As your commander in chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq. After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries' futures."

Obama's approach mirrors the initial U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, where a small number of special operators backed by massive airpower helped the Northern Alliance and other Afghan allies overthrow the Taliban. In that case, they were in combat.

Right now, U.S. troops are slated to embed with Iraqi units at the brigade level and higher, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers Tuesday that Obama has given him permission to ask for U.S. troops to play a more direct role in combat "on a case-by-case basis."

Specifically, Dempsey may recommend to Obama that special operators who are qualified as Joint Terminal Attack Controllers embed with Iraqi units to call in airstrikes, he said.

"If we get to the point where I think we need the JTAC with the Iraqi security forces, I will make the recommendation," Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "But I'm not there."

Dempsey's comments about U.S. troops being close enough to combat to call in airstrikes prompted enough questions from the media that his spokesman issued a statement later on Tuesday clarifying that Dempsey backs Obama's strategy of supporting Iraqi forces. As things stand now, the chairman does not believe that U.S. military advisers need to go into combat with Iraqi units.

"The context of this discussion was focused on how our forces best and most appropriately advise the Iraqis and was not a broader discussion of employing U.S. ground combat units in Iraq," Air Force Col. Ed Thomas said in the statement.

So the back-and-forth over which U.S. forces are "ground troops" and which are "advisers" continues, proving an argument made by master strategist Karl von Clausewitz: "Everything in war is simple, but the most simple thing is difficult."

Share:
In Other News
Load More