Words Matter – And So Do Boots
The Obama Administration announced this week that an additional 250 Special Forces troops are being sent to Syria to support rebels fighting ISIS – the Islamic State. This comes less than one week after the announcement that an additional 217 U.S. Army Soldiers are being deployed to Iraq in order to support the Iraqi military in their ongoing fight with ISIS. Both of these statements come after the revelation that a United States Marine Corps artillery unit, which was placed near ISIS-controlled territory to provide battery and counter-battery fire in support of Iraqi troops, suffered casualties. This revelation only came about because a Marine was killed by an ISIS rocket attack. This disclosure confirms what many analysts and many Americans suspected for some time, that American service members were directly engaged in the fight against ISIS.
Notwithstanding such evidence, the Administration offers a consistent claim: that it will not send any American troops to serve on the ground in Iraq or Syria. Sometimes the President attempts to clarify this statement by asserting there will be no ground troops in a combat role. At other times he explains his central claim by stating that there might be American military advisors or special operators who will accompany Iraqi or Syrian forces in a supportive, but not combat, role. In the latest announcement, speaking of the 250 additional Green Berets being sent to Syria, the President stated, “[W]e are not sending ground troops in to fight . . . .” This is a claim that is hard for anyone to take seriously.
The additional 250 Special Forces personnel being sent to Syria, along with the 217 individuals deployed to Iraq, bring the “formal” total of U.S. troops in the area to 4,337 – up from 3,870. Combined with our Special Operations forces already there and those assigned to the United States Embassy in Baghdad, military analysts believe the total number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Syria is now well over 5,000. However, the exact number is unknown since the Pentagon does not normally release the number of troops who are there on temporary duty, or what is called TDY. U.S. military personnel or units can be deployed up to 179 days on TDY orders; however, this time period can be extended if the mission or circumstances on the ground indicate that an extension is necessary. Hence, temporary duty can be fairly open-ended.
The United States will also increase the number of AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters in an effort to support Iraq’s attempt to retake the city of Mosul from ISIS fighters. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Prime Minister of Iraq announced plans to place U.S. troops who are “advising and assisting” closer to this city of four million people. The Journal also reports that a Special Operations unit known as an expeditionary targeting force is already in the area working with our coalition partners.
This announcement of additional troops comes in tandem with a report that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that U.S. troops will now be assigned to “advise and assist” the Iraqis down to the battalion level for the first time. Before this change in policy U.S. military personnel served in Iraq only at the brigade and division level. It bears noting that in the composition of military units, a battalion is typically made up of four to six companies and a company usually contains 100 or so Soldiers. A brigade is typically composed of four to six battalions. A division may have anywhere from three to six brigades.
More importantly, the placement of a battalion (and our troops are being assigned to Iraqi battalions) is significantly closer to the fight in a war. While a brigade can be involved in tactical matters near the battle – a battalion is generally up close and personal in a fight. Battalions exist to actually shape the physical/geographical battlefield. (Division level and up are often more involved in overarching strategic goals as opposed to only tactical.) To the extent that there even is a “frontline” in today’s asymmetrical warfare, a battalion is generally a frontline unit. A Colonel generally commands a brigade. Battalions are commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel; companies are usually commanded by a Captain. To illustrate the difference in the placement and inherent risks of a battalion as opposed to a brigade or division, in Vietnam 12 General Officers and 238 Colonels died, compared with 1,324 Majors and Lieutenant Colonels and 2,045 Captains. In all ranks the numbers of casualties increase in units lower in the echelon of military units, as those units are generally closer to the actual fighting.
The war with ISIS in particular and with Radical Islamic Terrorism generally, is asymmetrical. In other words, there is often no front line and the danger and violence is ever present for our personnel when they are deployed to such places as Iraq or Syria. In a war if you are in a combat zone and people are trying to kill you – you are in combat, regardless of whatever the Executive branch might say. Every one of our military personnel in Iraq or deployed along the Syrian border is armed. The only exception would be chaplains. Having served as a chaplain myself in this area of the world, I am confident that ISIS, which has beheaded unarmed journalists and civilian Christians, would have no qualms about killing a chaplain. In the hostilities in Afghanistan, for instance, one chaplain and one chaplain assistant have given their lives in service to our country.
Certainly there is a difference when it comes to military occupational specialties (MOS) or jobs in the military: There are Soldiers in combat MOSs, as well as particular battalions, brigades, and so forth who are designated as combat organizations. Others are designated as some form of combat support. However, for this Administration to repeatedly insist that there will be no service personnel in a “combat role” in the Middle Eastern theater is a claim that is massively misleading.
It is clear that when you are armed and accompanying foreign troops who are engaged in battle, you will be targeted by those trying to kill those troops. And I am confident that our personnel would return fire. In such a scenario you are, by definition, in a combat role. Since all deployed people in the military wear boots – those boots are, unquestionably, of the combat variety.
It is not my intent in this article to make the case for, or against, the advisability of sending ground troops to Iraq or Syria, whatever the numbers being deployed. However, when the President parses words and deftly utilizes nuance, he does a disservice to the American people.
To those of us who have served in the military, such words are disingenuous. It seems that in an effort to protect his own legacy and in order to affirm his disinclination to engage in war, President Obama not only misleads the people, but also minimizes the service of our Armed Forces personnel. At the same time, he discounts the danger in which they find themselves.
Until my retirement three years ago I had the privilege to work with, and personally brief, most of the senior leadership in the Department of Defense. As the senior-ranking chaplain at Dover Air Force Base in charge of support of the Families of the Fallen, it was my solemn and sacred duty to meet with over 1,600 family members and to assist in the processing of 1,152 fallen Service Members during my three-year tenure there. Part of my job was to brief the nation’s leaders on the families arriving to meet the bodies of their fallen loved ones and then to escort that official and introduce them to the individual family members. Without exception, these senior military and civilian leaders were saddened by their interaction with these families. In virtually every case, countless generals, admirals and senior government officials offered empathy and care for these families that was touching and admirable.
And yet it seems that our President exhibits an unwillingness to listen to these same senior advisers who know firsthand the cost of war. These individuals know the firm, decisive action that is necessary to successfully engage in war. It appears that our Commander-in-Chief insists that he knows more than four Secretaries of Defense and the career flag officers who appear to be constantly trying to explain his misstatements and to nudge the President toward a decisive approach to this conflict.
Consistent with this example, last year President Obama said drone attacks in places like Yemen and Somalia would be executed only if there were “near certainty” that no civilians would be harmed. This is an impossible and unrealistic standard in any war. Unfortunately, it is not how war works. It is equally disingenuous to state we are putting troops on the ground in a region torn apart by war and violence like Iraq and Syria – and say they are not combat troops. As an Army Chaplain twice deployed to war zones, I have known danger that comes from the heat of battle. Similarly, the Soldiers and Marines with whom I deployed knew they were unavoidably engaged in warfare as combat troops.
When the enemy attacks members of the United States military, it is clear that the nation is at war and that the Soldiers, who are thereby placed in harm’s way, are in combat. This is true no matter how much the President, or members of his administration, refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of them.