Combat Forces May Remain In Iraq Long Term
Some of the U.S. forces likely to remain in Iraq after President Barack Obama fulfills his pledge to withdraw combat troops would still have a combat role fighting suspected terrorists, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
In his speech to Congress last night, Obama reiterated a frequent campaign promise to saying he will "soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." (Read more in CBSNews.com's Political Hotsheet blog.)
That announcement could come as early as Friday. Mr. Obama will travel that day to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where he is expected to lay out his timetable for withdrawal, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.
Mr. Obama's compromise withdrawal plan may also leave behind as many as 50,000 troops for cleanup and protection operations.
Although most of the fighting forces would be withdrawn in the next 18 months, some of those units could be in Iraq for years to come. An agreement forged by the Bush administration with Iraqi officials requires removal of all U.S. forces by 2012.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that a holdover, or "residual," force would number in the tens of thousands.
His spokesman said Wednesday that assuming there is such a force, it would have three primary functions: Training and helping Iraqi forces; protecting Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq and limited counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead.
"I think a limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "By and large you're talking about people who we would classify as enablers, support troops."
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war, and pledged to do so in 16 months. The withdrawal timetable he is expected to approve would stretch over 19 months, counting from Inauguration Day. That means more than 100,000 troops would leave over the coming 18 months.
The pullout would free up troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said the threat to national security remains high.
"We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," Obama said in his address to Congress on Tuesday.
Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and others met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday. There was no announcement afterward.
"The president has not made a final decision about our force structure in Iraq going forward," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday. "I don't think it would be a surprise, though, to anybody in this room that the president since his first full day in office has been working toward a solution that would responsibly draw down our troops in Iraq."
Morrell said he anticipates an announcement this week.
The role and makeup of residual forces has been unclear throughout last year's negotiations between the United States and Iraq, and during Obama's planning for an exit strategy.
Plans became only slightly clearer Wednesday. Morrell said many troops would be long-term advisers in such areas as intelligence, or would help the Iraqi military fill in gaps in equipment such as helicopters.
Although he said Iraq would still be considered a "war zone," Morrell said most remaining forces would not do anything that resembles fighting.
"But just because these troops would carry a sidearm, as all U.S. troops do in theater, that should not be confused with them having a combat mission," Morrell said.
"For example, U.S. personnel assigned to the Ministry of Finance may have a sidearm, but I doubt they'd consider themselves a combat force, and certainly wouldn't be equipped in that fashion to perform combat operations."
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. In his speech to Congress last night, Obama reiterated a frequent campaign promise to saying he will "soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." (Read more in CBSNews.com's Political Hotsheet blog.)
That announcement could come as early as Friday. Mr. Obama will travel that day to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where he is expected to lay out his timetable for withdrawal, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.
Mr. Obama's compromise withdrawal plan may also leave behind as many as 50,000 troops for cleanup and protection operations.
Although most of the fighting forces would be withdrawn in the next 18 months, some of those units could be in Iraq for years to come. An agreement forged by the Bush administration with Iraqi officials requires removal of all U.S. forces by 2012.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that a holdover, or "residual," force would number in the tens of thousands.
His spokesman said Wednesday that assuming there is such a force, it would have three primary functions: Training and helping Iraqi forces; protecting Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq and limited counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead.
"I think a limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "By and large you're talking about people who we would classify as enablers, support troops."
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war, and pledged to do so in 16 months. The withdrawal timetable he is expected to approve would stretch over 19 months, counting from Inauguration Day. That means more than 100,000 troops would leave over the coming 18 months.
The pullout would free up troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said the threat to national security remains high.
"We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war," Obama said in his address to Congress on Tuesday.
Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and others met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday. There was no announcement afterward.
"The president has not made a final decision about our force structure in Iraq going forward," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday. "I don't think it would be a surprise, though, to anybody in this room that the president since his first full day in office has been working toward a solution that would responsibly draw down our troops in Iraq."
Morrell said he anticipates an announcement this week.
The role and makeup of residual forces has been unclear throughout last year's negotiations between the United States and Iraq, and during Obama's planning for an exit strategy.
Plans became only slightly clearer Wednesday. Morrell said many troops would be long-term advisers in such areas as intelligence, or would help the Iraqi military fill in gaps in equipment such as helicopters.
Although he said Iraq would still be considered a "war zone," Morrell said most remaining forces would not do anything that resembles fighting.
"But just because these troops would carry a sidearm, as all U.S. troops do in theater, that should not be confused with them having a combat mission," Morrell said.
"For example, U.S. personnel assigned to the Ministry of Finance may have a sidearm, but I doubt they'd consider themselves a combat force, and certainly wouldn't be equipped in that fashion to perform combat operations."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Boat hijack stokes tension between N. Korea, China
- China probes rice tainted with cancer-causing cadmium
- Hezbollah suffers heavy losses fighting inside Syria
- Lebanon reportedly stopping Syria refugees at border
- Israel and Syria exchange fire on Golan Heights
- Syria activists: 31 Hezbollah fighters killed in Qusair
- Russia shows accused U.S. spy heading home
- Some Swedish youth riot over police shooting death
Posted by hower4 at 7:56 AM : Feb 26, 2009
It's the very fact that you don't post about the atrocities of Saddam, Al Qaeda and the Taliban that makes you their supporter and just as guilty. Where are your cries "against" these maniacal dictators/terrorists. I haven't seen any, so I guess you have to show me your disgust for these pathetic humans before I take anything you say as the "correct" way to look at murder. I take the be headers, suicide bombers and sadistic dictators as the murderers, we all know whose side you take and you can't talk your way out of that one.
Posted by dmw1167 at 7:04 AM : Feb 26, 2009
Looks to me like it is running pacific time.
I HOPE YOU GET EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WISHED UPON OTHERS.
Posted by hower4 at 7:15 AM : Feb 26, 2009
I think you're disgusting, soooo passionate about defending cowards who take over villages and towns using terror, this bringing the war to the innocents. You wanna fight jihad, stop hiding behind the womens skirts and come out in the open. This way only the guilty die and those who oppose "jihad" get to live.
I don't know how many palaces Saddam had, but I'm sure it's not a crime that calls for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. How much money do Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld have? Do you and your family deserve to die for it?
Your arguments are immoral and disgusting and I think I've had enough of you, your arguments and your supposed American superiority and morality.
I HOPE YOU GET EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WISHED UPON OTHERS.
Posted by hower4 at 7:15 AM : Feb 26, 2009
Hmmm, it's kind of similar to flying planes into buildings and killing innocents who have nothing to do with the Middle East isn't it. Also, you should read the news, many of the deaths were conducted by their own people fighting each other. Suicide bombers aren't hitting our troops, just innocent women and children. Please note that the Taliban are terrorizing the villagers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but what is a "beheading" of an innocent villager to you? I think your problem is that you think the Taliban and Al qaeda are better than everyone else and should be "free" to conduct their war. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, your jihad brothers will continue the fight and so we will respond.
All the people around the world who think you were totally wrong are just overly sensitive, are they?
Posted by hower4 at 6:54 AM : Feb 26, 2009
I never believed invading Iraq was about 9/11. More like, no more "no-fly zone" for a nut job dictator that blusters about WMD. Also, if the Afghans couldn't remove the Taliban and OBL, how the heck are we supposed to do this without invading the country? Is it like Star Trek where we "beam them out"? I wish we did have the technology to scalpel cut out the terrorists, everyone would be happy and there wouldn't be a need for "boots on the ground".
Posted by hower4 at 6:59 AM : Feb 26, 2009
No you didn't answer the question.
Posted by hower4 at 6:54 AM : Feb 26, 2009
yes the majority of the world, including many in this country have become overly sensative.