Physical And Financial Costs Of “Non-Combat” Role For U.S. Troops in Iraq Are High

The “non-combat” euphemism used to describe the role of the remaining U.S. troops occupying Iraq does not mean the mission is any less dangerous. As proof of that, 5 U.S. soldiers were killed along with 20 Iraqis in a Monday rocket attack on a military base near Baghdad in the central part of the country.

U.S. military officials were tight-lipped about the incident and gave few details of the incident, which proved to be the deadliest  single day for American forces in Iraq since 2009.

Attacks killed five American soldiers and 20 Iraqis on Monday, the deadliest day for US forces in Iraq in more than two years, just months before all of them must withdraw.

The violence raises major doubts over Iraqi security capabilities ahead of a year-end deadline for the US pullout, with Washington pressing Baghdad to decide soon whether or not it wants an extended American military presence.

“Five US service members were killed Monday in central Iraq,” said a brief US army statement. The names and details of the deceased are being withheld until next of kin can be informed, it added.

Captain Dan Churchill, a US military spokesman contacted by AFP, declined to give details on how or where the soldiers died.

An Iraqi interior ministry official said at least three rockets struck a base in east Baghdad where US soldiers were present, but could not specify if it was an American or Iraqi installation.

An Iraqi police official, however, said five rockets were fired at an American base on Baghdad’s outskirts.

Both officials said the rockets were fired at dawn.

The deaths were the most of American service personnel in a single day since May 11, 2009, when a US soldier was arrested and charged for having opened fire on five of his comrades on a base just outside Baghdad.

Three years after Barack Obama campaigned for president on a promise to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and end what had become a viscerally unpopular war, many Americans may be shocked to hear that American soldiers are still fighting and dying in what has remained a strong presence in the nominally independent country.

The official “combat” role for U.S. troops in Iraq ended in August of last year, when the final “combat brigade” was withdrawn and the Obama administration claimed all that remained were troops to “advise and assist” the Iraqi government and security forces. The president said at the time that the development was part of ending the war in Iraq “responsibly.”

Almost one year later, violence is spiking in Iraq and American servicemembers are facing new dangers even as “combat” operations have ended. Nearly 50,000 U.S. troops are still stationed at bases throughout Iraq, although all are scheduled to leave by the end of 2011 under an agreement with the Iraqi government.

But Monday’s attack is indicative of a new wave of violence in the country that many say will jeopardize the withdrawal timetable and, the Christian Science Monitor reported, it is “looking increasingly likely” that American soldiers will continue to patrol Iraq for months, possibly years, to come.

In February, long before the deadliest attack on US forces since the onset of a “non-combat” role , lawmakers in Washington and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were openly expressing skepticism that U.S. troops will leave Iraq as scheduled by the end of this year. Gates said he has had “informal” talks with Iraqis about leaving U.S. troops in the country, and one lawmaker said about 20,000 troops would be a “politically acceptable” number to remain indefinitely.

It is looking increasingly likely that American troops will stay in Iraq beyond December 2011 scheduled date of withdrawal for the US military – a prospect that appears to be gaining bipartisan support in Congress.

One congressman suggested Thursday that the politically acceptable size of the force that would remain in Iraq “could be 20,000.”

Senior US officials have recently expressed concern about the ability of contractors and the State Department to take over the responsibilities that the Pentagon currently carries out Iraq, including everything from providing security to maintaining intelligence networks. Under the terms of the US mission in Iraq, however, the US military could stay only at the request of the Iraqi government.

Top Pentagon officials said Thursday that the Iraqi government shares some of their concerns.

“There have been a number of informal conversations with the Iraqis about this,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

During these talks, the Iraqi government indicated that it “is very open to a continuing presence that would be larger where we could help the Iraqis for a period of time,” Mr. Gates said.

The Monitor article goes on to quote to senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee that he would be “very surprised” if the Iraqi government does not “request” American troops to stay past the timetable for withdrawal, and that 20,000 troops could stay as “trainers.”

There appears to be “bipartisan consensus” for a prolonged U.S. military presence in Iraq.

For its part, Congress seems increasingly braced for the request to extend US troop presence in Iraq. “I think it’s also obvious that the Iraqi military doesn’t have a lot of the technological capability that they need to combat to this kind of insurgency that is still out there,” Sen. John McCain, the committee’s top Republican, said in Thursday’s hearing.

Hanging over the discussion on whether to keep up to 20,000 American soldiers in Iraq is the cost of such an operation. Even after the transition of U.S. troops to a “non-combat” role last August, the cost of operations in Iraq totaled $51.1 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Combined with the burgeoning war in Afghanistan, that makes a total of over $170 billion in war costs in FY 2011.