US to send 200 more troops, Apache helicopters, to Iraq

[webfact]

US to send 200 more troops, Apache helicopters, to Iraq
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. has agreed to deploy more than 200 additional troops to Iraq and to send eight Apache helicopters for the first time into the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq, the first major increase in U.S. forces in nearly a year, U.S. defense officials said Monday.

The uptick in American fighting forces — and the decision to put them closer to the front lines — is designed to help Iraqi forces as they move to retake the key northern city of Mosul.

Speaking to reporters Monday in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the decision to move U.S. advisers to the Iraqi brigade and battalion level will put them "closer to the action," but he said they will have security forces with them and the U.S. will do what's needed to reduce the risks.

A senior U.S. official said that there will be eight Apache helicopters authorized to help the Iraqi forces when Iraq leaders determine they need them. The official was not authorized to discuss the numbers publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Last June the Obama administration announced that hundreds of troops would be deployed to help the Iraqis retake Ramadi — a goal they accomplished at the end of the year.

Of the additional troops announced Monday, most would be Army special forces, who have been used throughout the anti-Islamic State campaign to advise and assist the Iraqis. The remainder would include some trainers, security forces for the advisers, and maintenance teams for the Apaches.

The decisions reflect weeks of discussions with commanders and Iraqi leaders, and a decision by President Barack Obama to increase the authorized troop level in Iraq by 217 forces — or from 3,870 to 4,087. The advise-and-assist teams — made up of about a dozen troops each — would embed with Iraqi brigades and battalions, likely putting them closer to the front lines and at greater risk from mortars and rocket fire.

The U.S., said Carter, is "on the same page with the Iraqi government" in how to intensify the fight against the Islamic State.

Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the deployment of troops was welcome but called it "yet another example of the kind of grudging incrementalism that rarely wins wars, but could certainly lose one."

The proximity to the battlefront will allow the U.S. teams to provide more tactical combat advice as the Iraqi units move toward Mosul, the country's second-largest city, still under Islamic State control. Until now, U.S. advisers have worked with the Iraqis at the headquarters level, well back from the front lines.

Carter called the addition of the Apache helicopters significant, because they can "respond so quickly and so dynamically to an evolving tactical situation."

He said he discussed the Apaches with Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Monday and, "he understood that it would be necessary for just these cases and agreed with me that we would provide it."

Last December, U.S. officials were trying to carefully negotiate new American assistance with Iraqi leaders who often have a different idea of how to wage war. At that time, the Iraqis refused Apache helicopters for the battle to retake Ramadi, saying they didn't think they were needed.

Speaking to U.S. troops at the airport in Baghdad, Carter also said that the U.S. will send an additional long-range, rocket-assisted artillery system to Iraq.

U.S. officials have also said that the number of special operations forces in Syria would be increased at some point, but Carter did not mention that in his comments. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Carter's announcement Monday came after several meetings with his commanders and Iraqi leaders about how the U.S. can best prepare Iraqi forces to retake Mosul.

In addition to his session with al-Abadi, Carter also met with Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the top U.S. military commander for the Islamic State fight, and minister of defense Khalid al-Obeidi.

He also spoke by phone with the president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani. Later, Carter announced to the troops that the U.S. aid will extend to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces fighting in northern Iraq. Carter said the U.S. has authorized sending up to $415 million to the Kurds over time.

MacFarland told reporters that the money will be used in part to help feed the Peshmerga troops, who have been dealing with food shortages.

Carter on Tuesday will travel to Saudit Arabia to meet with defense ministers from Gulf nationsl. And Obama will also be in Riyadh to talk with Gulf leaders about the fight against the Islamic State and ask for their help in rebuilding Ramadi, which took heavy damage in the battle.

U.S. military and defense officials have made it clear that winning back Mosul is critical, but will be challenging, because the insurgents are dug in and have likely peppered the landscape with roadside bombs and other traps for any advancing military.

A senior defense official told reporters traveling with Carter that while Iraqi leaders have been reluctant to have a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq, they also need certain capabilities that only more American or coalition forces can provide. The official was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-19

[tonbridgebrit]

Ash Carter and John McCain, NO.

America made the initial mistake of being in Iraq in the first place. That was back in 2003. You got out of it. What's happening now ? Oh, you're getting back in ??
Surely, the goal was to get OUT of Iraq ? An exit strategy was needed nearly ten years ago. Don't get back in again. Because you're going to have the problem of getting out IF you go back in.

And that's the problem. It's not getting in, it's getting OUT.


And John McCain, are you the same John McCain who tried to be POTUS (president of the US) back in 2008 ? You failed to beat Barak Obama ?
You was too old to be POTUS back then, maybe you should retire right now. Mr McCain, did you support the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 ? You made that mistake THIRTEEN YEARS ago. Oh well, I suppose you're forgiven. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake as you back then.

[Kabula]

As I recall, America has not won a war since WWII, which is about 69 years ago as I recall.

If you want to win a war,and eliminate most taxes, make them your friends!

[Jimbo1964]

Some governments never learn !

[Thaidream]

And in the meantime- millions of Americans cannot afford healthcare; senior citizens get no increase in their pension and the poverty rate increases. Yet, the money keeps flowing abroad.

[DONHUAN]

After the invasion of Iraq, the US army never really left Iraq in the first place. Fighting ISIS, Al Queda or other terrorist acronyms is simply an excuse for more ‘boots on the ground’ or more ‘US contractors’ operating as trainers for the Iraqi army. Without any comprehensive political solution in Iraq can the US army simply kill all the terrorists who are disguised as Sunni Muslims in Iraq? More ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq can later translate to more troops in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Arctic Ocean and the South China Sea.

Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, a failed state with three distinct races and separate political entities which can never be put back together again, unless the USA reinstalled a Saddam-like dictator in Iraq; as Collin Powell once said: “if you broke it, you own it.”

Once again, President Obama, the anointed Nobel Peace Prize winner, had committed the same cardinal sin as his predecessors did by instinctively using the ‘biggest hammer’ on earth to nail down a political issue that solves nothing in real terms. Obama’s term in office (8 years) is about to end but the political quagmire in Iraq is still unresolved; and to make a bad situation worse, he added Libya on top of all the other political / economic / financial / social ‘time-bombs’ for the next US president to handle. History will remember Obama as the US President that YES, WE CAN also kicked down our ginormous problems for the next generation to chew on.

[JingerBen]

Some governments never learn !

That's true, Jimbo.

But it doesn't apply to the US Government.

The war-based industrial complex does very well regardless if conflicts are won or lost.

Geopolitical considerations, such as oil or keeping the neighbourhood safe for Israel, are of secondary importance.

The essential thing is to keep Americans - or their proxies - fighting.

[Rancid]

Also sending weapons into Syria apparently. You do have to wonder at the wisdom of arming Islamic terrorists with anti-aircraft missiles though. Presumably they want them to shoot at the Russians, but how long till a civilian plane is shot down?

Yeah, things are really moving in a great direction over there, should be years of war and profitable arm sales. And the winners are..?

[pitrevie]

As I recall, America has not won a war since WWII, which is about 69 years ago as I recall.

If you want to win a war,and eliminate most taxes, make them your friends!

Not true, Reagan if you remember soundly defeated the Grenadians I do hope they make a film about it one day I like comedy.

[Nobb]

This is like putting a pimple on a monkeys ass!

[Kabula]

As I recall, America has not won a war since WWII, which is about 69 years ago as I recall.

If you want to win a war,and eliminate most taxes, make them your friends!

Not true, Reagan if you remember soundly defeated the Grenadians I do hope they make a film about it one day I like comedy.

That wasn't a war, but an invasion that some alleged to be illegal that lasted only a few weeks with very few American deaths. War was never declared, nor did the media ever refer to it as a war, but as an invasion!

[Scott]

An aberrant spelling of the name of the President of the US has been removed. Please use the correct spelling of politicians' names.

[pitrevie]

As I recall, America has not won a war since WWII, which is about 69 years ago as I recall.

If you want to win a war,and eliminate most taxes, make them your friends!

Not true, Reagan if you remember soundly defeated the Grenadians I do hope they make a film about it one day I like comedy.

That wasn't a war, but an invasion that some alleged to be illegal that lasted only a few weeks with very few American deaths. War was never declared, nor did the media ever refer to it as a war, but as an invasion!

Have you ever worked for Dick Cheney? I have just checked it out and it appears that the last person who actually declared war was FDR in 1941 against Japan. All the others are considered “Extended Military Engagements.” Amazing isn't it? So technically the USA hasn't lost a war since.....

Edited April 20, 2016 by pitrevie

[LawrenceChee]

It's a lost cause ....and removing Saddam will haunt most western nations for years to come

In the Middle East they understand brutality better than democracy

I know this will sound uncomfortable for some , Saddam or his likes are needed .

They keep the small population of fanatics in fear of sudden night deaths and extermination of their families through brutal means. With the inhumane methodology , they have kept the streets safe for millions of normal civilians who just want a normal life and not understand all these

The USA interference of introducing arms , giving aid to groups have unbalanced the natural order of things and now every school yard boy thinks they have a right to dictate terms in the sandbox because the big bully has gone for a toilet break

The next big bully will be back soon and when you look at all the recent developments , I believe people are hoping soon.

Hence Russian have advocated Assad to stay in power ...he may be an brute but he's a brute that ISIS has to deal with and it keeps them busy from other places / targets