This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Iraq crisis: US urgently deploys hundreds of armed troops
Iraq crisis: US urgently deploys hundreds of armed troops to Baghdad
(about 2 hours later)
The US is urgently deploying several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq and considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency, even as the White House insists anew that America will not be dragged into another war.
The US has announced it is sending more than 250 soldiers to be positioned in and around Iraq as President Barack Obama considers the options available for halting the advance of Sunni militants.
President Barack Obama notified Congress on Monday that up to 275 troops could be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for US personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. About 170 of those forces have already arrived and another 100 soldiers will be on standby in a nearby country until they are needed, a US official said.
Despite declaring that any involvement would not include boots on the ground, Mr Obama notified Congress that up to 275 military personnel would be deployed to protect US assets including the American Embassy in Baghdad.
While Mr Obama has vowed to keep US forces out of combat in Iraq, he said in his notification to Congress that the personnel moving into the region are equipped for direct fighting.
The soldiers, of whom 170 have already arrived in Iraq, are prepared and equipped for combat – though the President insisted it is not his intention for any of his troops to engage in direct fighting.
And separately, three US officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq. Their limited mission — which has not yet been approved — would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation's north and west as the al-Qa'ida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.
Yesterday he met with his national security team to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq, after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) group took the northern city of Tal Afar.
The moves come at the White House wrestles with an array of options for helping Iraq repel a Sunni Muslim insurgency that has captured large swaths of territory collaring Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government. In a rare move, US officials reached out to Iran on Monday to discuss ways the long-time foes might help stop the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis).
US officials later told reporters that the White House was “considering” the option of sending an additional contingent of Special Forces troops in a mission to train and advise the under-fire Iraqi troops, who rapidly retreated in the face of the sudden militant offensive almost two weeks ago.
The conversations took place on the sidelines of separate nuclear negotiations taking place in Vienna, Austria. US officials quickly tamped down speculation that the discussion might include military coordination or consultation, though Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with Yahoo! News that the US would “not rule out anything that would be constructive.”
Combined, the developments suggest Obama is more than willing to send Americans in to halt the collapse of Iraq, short of direct engagement with Isis.
Mr Kerry stressed that any contacts with Iran would move “step-by-step.”
The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Obama would not send troops back into combat, he has asked for the preparation of “a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces”.
Taken together, the developments suggest a willingness by Mr Obama to send Americans into a collapsing security situation in order to quell the brutal fighting in Iraq before it morphs into outright war.
Any additional troops sent in would, like those tasked with boosting embassy security, fall under the authority of the US ambassador in Baghdad. But they would not be authorised to engage in combat, except to defend themselves if under attack.
The White House said the forces authorized for support and security will assist with the temporary relocation of some staff from the Baghdad embassy. The forces are entering Iraq with the consent of that country's government, the White House said.
The prospect of an all-out war in Iraq has sparked a potential renewal in relations between the US and Iran, with both sides hinting at the value of cooperation to restore relative order to the country.
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said the troops on standby could “provide airfield management, security, and logistics support, if required.” They could work with embassy security teams or operate as a stand-alone force as directed.
On Monday the commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, General Ghasem Soleimani, was in Iraq to consult with the government on how to bring a stop to the insurgents’ territorial gains.
Officials would not say where the soldiers would be on standby, but It is likely they would be in Kuwait, which was a major basing ground for US troops during the Iraq war.
Iraqi security officials said the US government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organised Shia militia attacks on US troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria's President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.
If the US were to deploy an additional team of special forces, the mission would almost certainly be small. One US official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission — meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but would not officially be considered as combat troops.
Discussing other options for an intervention yesterday, the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that drone strikes could prove “important” in halting the Isis advance.
The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Mr Obama would not send troops back into combat, “he has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces.”
Speaking in an interview with Yahoo! News, he said: “They [drones] are not the whole answer, but they may well be one of the options that are important to be able to stem the tide and stop the movement of people who are moving around in open convoys and trucks and terrorizing people.
It's not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It's also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation's north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory collaring Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.
“When you have people murdering, assassinating in these mass massacres, you have to stop that and you do what you need to do if you need to try to stop it from the air or otherwise.”
The troops would fall under the authority of the US ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another US official said. Their mission would be “non-operational training” of both regular and counter terrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases, the official said.
But while the US has positioned three warships in the Persian Gulf, including the USS George HW Bush aircraft carrier, it was announced yesterday that the UK will take no part in any military intervention.
However, all US troops are allowed to defend themselves in Iraq if they are under attack.
Issuing a statement to the Commons, Foreign Secretary William Hague said that Britain would be looking at the options available to help the Iraqi government without committing to any active engagement.
The three US officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the plans by name.
He said: “We are taking action in three areas: promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region; offering assistance where appropriate and possible and alleviating humanitarian suffering.
Mr Obama made the end of the war in Iraq one of his signature campaign issues, and has touted the US military withdrawal in December 2011 as one of his top foreign policy successes. But he has been caught over the past week between Iraqi officials pleading for help — as well as Republicans blaming him for the loss of a decade's worth of gains in Iraq — and his anti-war Democratic political base, which is demanding that the US stay out of the fight.
“We have made it clear this does not involve planning a military intervention by the United Kingdom.”
While the White House continues to review its options, Iran's military leaders are starting to step into the beach.
The commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, Gen Ghasem Soleimani, was in Iraq on Monday and consulting with the government there on how to stave off insurgents' gains. Iraqi security officials said the US government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organized Shiite militias to target US troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria's President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.
In fighting on Monday, the insurgents seized the strategic city of Tal Afar near the Syrian border, and an Iraqi army helicopter was shot down during clashes near the city of Fallujah west of Baghdad, killing the two-man crew, security officials said.
In the short term, the US and Iran both want the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stabilized and the Sunni-led insurgency stopped. But in the long run, the United States would like to see an inclusive, representative democracy take hold in Iraq, while predominantly Shiite Iran is more focused on protecting Iraq's Shiite population and bolstering its own position as a regional power against powerful Sunni Arab states in the Gulf.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said any discussion with Iran would concern ways that Iran could help press al-Maliki's government to be more inclusive and treat all of Iraq's religious and ethnic groups equally.
Any talks with Iran “would be to discuss the political component here and our interest in encouraging Iraqi leaders to act in a responsible, nonsectarian way,” she told reporters. “Certainly a discussion of that is something that we would be open to.”
