WASHINGTON – Are U.S. troops in Iraq on a combat mission?
It depends on who you ask.
In a Senate hearing on the administration's plan to fight the jihadist army ISIS, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., U.S. forces will grow to about 1,600 advisers in Iraq, but he insisted they will not be involved in combat missions.
That is, U.S. forces will not be embedded with Iraqi troops helping to coordinate U.S. airstrikes against ISIS. They will only advise from the sidelines.
TRENDING: To DEI for
When Inhofe asked Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey if the U.S. pilots conducting the airstrikes are on a combat mission, he simply replied, "Yes."
However, both Hagel and Dempsey went to great lengths to insist there will be no U.S. forces on the ground involved in combat missions against ISIS.
When Inhofe asked Dempsey if the U.S. would deploy troops on the ground on a rescue mission, he said, yes, but both he and Hagel emphasized repeatedly there are no plans to send Americans into battle.
Dempsey said all U.S. troops are combat forces, but they are used in different roles. And the 1,600 would be used only in advisory roles.
When asked if there were any circumstances under which the U.S might send ground troops, Dempsey said only under some worst-case scenarios, such as if ISIS forces threatened to retake the city of Mosul.
Dempsey said the Iraqi troops on the ground, in conjunction with Kurdish fighters, would be sufficient to coordinate airstrikes. The approach had worked successfully to defend American diplomatic outposts, he said, even though it was complex and used three languages.
He called it a good template for future operations.
Time and again, Hagel and Dempsey steadfastly refused to consider embedding U.S. troops with either Iraqi or Syrian fighters. Hagel even repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee there is no military solution to the conflict. He later amended that to no purely military solution, saying it will require diplomatic and financial pressure as well.
However, Dempsey did not completely rule out using U.S. ground troops, terming that as simply a matter of common sense.
“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” said Dempsey. “But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces."
Dempsey added, while the president's policy is to put no U.S. ground forces into combat, “He has told me, as well, to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”
Senators were surprised by an admission made by Hagel, after he announced Saudi Arabia will host a program to train and equip 5,000 Syrian rebel fighters to combat ISIS, which is estimated to now have 31,000 fighters.
The administration has conceded there's an urgent need to destroy ISIS, but Hagel admitted it will take eight to 12 months to train the fighters.
A seemingly incredulous Democrat, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, asked if not having any trained ground troops in Syria for another year would affect the mission.
Hagel replied it will affect "a dimension of the overall strategy," without elaborating further.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also wondered whether the numbers added up, expressing doubt 5,000 rebels, who would not be on the battlefield for up to another year, could somehow defeat the 31,000-strong ISIS army.
"To many of us that seems like an inadequate response," he said.
Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York wondered why U.S.-trained rebels would want to fight ISIS when they are trying overthrow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
"How do we know the rebels won't align with ISIS when they have Assad in their sights?" she asked.
Hagel did not respond directly, so the senator asked what incentive could the administration give to the Free Syria Army, or FSA, to fight ISIS.
The defense secretary said there was no reason FSA could not fight both Assad and ISIS.
When the senator appeared skeptical, Hagel appeared to concede it was an imperfect answer by saying the U.S. has to do what it can now, even though victory will require a long-term effort over many years.
Democrats were also skeptical about how well Syrian rebels could be vetted, given how, as WND has reported numerous times, U.S. weapons supplied to supposed moderates have so often ended up in the hands of ISIS.
As WND also reported, the U.S. even trained so-called moderates that ended up joining ISIS.
Hagel said a rigorous vetting process will be critical, and the Defense Department would work closely with the State Department and U.S. intelligence.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., asked how the Defense Department defines a moderate and, "How do we make sure arms don't go to extremists?"
Dempsey didn't answer the first question, but he said the U.S. had "learned a lot" through contact with allies and local intelligence services, insisting, "We've come a long way in our ability to vet."
The question of how the U.S defines a moderate is on the minds of many administration critics.
Former CIA operative and current Mideast analyst Clare Lopez recently told WND the problem is that the U.S has removed any references to radical Islam in their vetting criteria.
That means vetters did not ask fighters about their ideology, only any past associations they may have had with radical groups, which Lopez characterized as a fatal flaw.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., expressed concern there would be "a big risk" of arms provided to rebels "being turned on us, if the past is any guide."
Hagel conceded there "will always be risk in program like this," but he believed the risk to be worth it "when faced with a threat like ISIS."