Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Danger Pay for Special Forces Headed To Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No Danger Pay for Special Forces Headed To Iraq

    The 300 Special Operations advisory troops President Obama has authorized for Iraq will be getting Imminent Danger Pay and local immunity.




    Special Forces troops heading to Iraq to advise the Iraqi security forces will not receive combat pay but will have immunity from local law, Pentagon officials said Friday.

    "This is not a combat mission, they are not being sent to participate in combat," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, of the 300 Special Forces troops ordered to Iraq by President Obama on Thursday.

    Consequently, the troops would not be eligible for "imminent danger pay" of $7.50 daily up to $225 per month for service members in areas where they could be at grave risk, Kirby said.

    Kirby said danger pay ended for U.S. troops with the withdrawal of forces at the end of 2011, and Iraq currently was no longer considered a combat zone in terms of pay and benefits for U.S. troops.

    Last month, the Defense Deparment eliminated "imminent danger pay" for troops serving in neighboring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and also in the Gulf state of Qatar.

    Kirby added that the troops going to Iraq to assess the state of Iraqi forces and advise them on combating the extremists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will not be subject to Iraqi law in case of an incident, Kirby said.

    U.S. forces returning to Iraq will be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Kirby said.

    "I can assure you they will have all legal protections," Kirby said.

    U.S. military personnel currently in Iraq at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad are covered by the diplomatic immunity of the State Department. The refusal of Iraq to give immunity from local law to U.S. troops was a major factor in the failure to reach a Status of Forces agreement that led to the 2011 withdrawal.

    Critics of the Obama administration have argued that the White House failed to put enough effort into the negotiations for a new Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed a training and advisory force to remain in Iraq.

    In announcing the decision to send the 300 Special Forces troops, President Obama said Thursday that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was to blame for the impasse over immunity for U.S. troops that led to the withdrawal.

    In Iraq Friday, government forces reportedly were regrouping north of Baghdad in preparation for a push against ISIS fighters who have taken over large swaths of territory north and west of the capital including the Mosul, the second largest city, Reuters reported.

    "The strategy has been for the last few days to have a new defense line to stop the advance" of ISIS fighters attacking in pickup trucks, a Maliki ally told Reuters. "We succeeded in blunting the advance and now are trying to get back areas unnecessarily lost."

    Pentagon officials gave a similar assessment. "We're starting to see some cohesiveness and some fight" from the Iraqi forces, Kirby said.

    Iraqi troops were also attempting to push ISIS fighters out of the northern town of Baiji, site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, Kirby said.

    "It's still unclear in whose hands it sits," Kirby said of Baiji.

    The Special Forces troops going to Iraq will be drawn from the U.S. Central Command and were expected to begin arriving in about a week, Kirby said.

    In the meantime, small teams drawn from U.S. military personnel at the Embassy from the Office of Security Cooperation, which oversees military sales to Iraq, will take up assignments advising the Iraqi forces.

    Their missions will be to determine the morale and status of the Iraqi forces, develop a clearer picture of the situation on the ground and set out an agenda for the arriving Special Forces troops, Kirby said.

    When asked if the Special Forces would coordinate targeting for possible airstrikes, Kirby said "The President hasn't made that decision." Last week, the U.S. moved the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush into the Persian Gulf to be closer to Iraq should airstrikes be ordered.

    The U.S. also has attack aircraft in Turkey, Kuwait, and Qatar, but it was unclear if those states would give the U.S. permission to conduct bombing raids from their territory.

    Kirby declined to put a timeline on how long the Special Forces troops might stay in Iraq but "we're not introducing American troops into Iraq for a lengthy stay."

    "It's not an occupation. It's not an invasion. It's a temporary arrangement," he said.

    Kirby acknowledged reports that ISIS fighters had overrun overrun a facility north of Baghdad that was used decades ago to produce chemical weapons, but he said it was an old facility that was "not likely to be able to be accessed or used."

    If ISIS fighters were to attempt to use it to produce chemical weapons, "it's likely to be more of a threat to them than to anyone else," Kirby said.

    State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed that ISIS "has occupied the Al Muthanna complex," a former chemical weapons facility about 36 miles northwest of Baghdad that was heavily bombed by the U.S. in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

    "We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site" by the group, Psaki said in a statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW (chemical weapons) materials of military value, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."

    -- Richard Sisk can be reached at richard.sisk@monster.com
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2


    U.S and Iraq talking over legal immunity for troops
    Jun. 20, 2014 - 03:10PM |
    0 Comments
    IRAQ-UNREST-SHIITES-VOLUNTEERS
    Newly-recruited Iraqi army volunteers attend a training session on June 20 in the southern city of Basra. (Haidar Mohammed Ali / AFP via Getty Images)

    By Andrew Tilghman
    Staff writer

    Filed Under

    News

    Crisis in Iraq

    See more coverage of the fighting in Iraq
    ———
    Related Links

    Military advisers also fight, history tells us
    Obama to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq

    The U.S. and Iraqi governments are revisiting the controversial issue of legal immunity for American troops, the key sticking point that prompted a complete withdraw of troops in 2011.

    As the Pentagon prepares to send up to 575 new troops into Iraq, officials say, talks are underway with the Iraqis to clarify the legal protections for service members working outside the U.S embassy.

    “We are pursuing something in writing,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday.

    “The secretary is absolutely committed to making sure that our troops have the legal protections. He would not do that on a nod and a wink.”

    “We are in constant contact with the Iraqi government about these arrangements and these personnel,” Kirby said.

    The deal would not be an official status of forces agreement, but would ensure that troops deploying there now will be able to use lethal force in self-defense and not risk ending up in an Iraqi courtroom or jailhouse. The Defense Department wants written assurance that “if an incident happens, that that individual has due process through the military justice system,” Kirby said.

    In 2011, U.S. military officials said Iraq’s refusal to approve a proper status of forces agreement that included legal protections for service members was the primary reason the U.S. withdrew all of its troops at the close of the eight-year war. While many Iraqis in 2011 opposed offering legal protections to U.S. troops, Kirby said the current deal under discussion is different and more limited.

    “What we were talking post-2011 was a fairly sizable force of American troops that would remain in Iraq for a long period of time. What we are talking about here is a very small number, up to 300, whose mission will be of a limited duration,” Kirby said.

    The issue arose after President Obama said Thursday that he would send up to 300 “military advisers” to Iraq to work alongside the Iraqi security forces. Their mission will be to gather intelligence about the conditions on the ground and assist the Iraqis in their fight against extremists’ militias.

    Those troops would come in addition to the 275 troops that Obama said may be needed to provide security for the U.S. embassy and the roughly 5,000 people who typically work there. Some of those embassy personnel have been relocated due to security concerns. About 170 troops were sent to the embassy last Sunday and U.S. Central Command has put on standby an additional 100 troops who specialize in flight support and airport operations.

    Insurgents from an al-Qaida offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have seized several large cities in Iraq’s Sunni-dominated north and west. With a force estimated to include several thousand fighters, ISIL is now facing stiff resistance from the Iraqi army in the towns on the far outskirts of Baghdad.

    The new U.S. military advisers may be moving outside of Baghdad to work with Iraqi army commanders at the brigade level. But Kirby emphasized that they will not be fighting alongside Iraqi troops.

    “They are not there on a combat mission,” he said. “In order to help the president make future follow-on decisions, we have to have more information about what is going on on the ground.”

    “That is what they will be doing and that is all they will be doing,” Kirby said.

    Since 2011, a small contingent of U.S. military personnel, about 200, has worked inside the embassy. Those are essentially administrative jobs and troops serving in those billets fall under the legal protections provided to diplomatic personnel. However, the new military advisers on their way to Iraq will have separate legal protections.

    Several dozen of those new advisers will be going into Iraq soon and the U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over legal protections will not delay their arrival, Kirby said.
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

    Comment


    • #3
      Sweet. Send Obama over there since it isn't dangerous.

      Comment


      • #4
        Since he is Commander in Chief he needs to set the example and lead from the front. Then someone can frag his ass

        Comment


        • #5
          I bet 5th group is thrilled about it. I could see this mission being like early Iraq (awesome) or like the pull out with their hands tied (gay).
          De Oppresso Liber.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by turboford View Post
            Since he is Commander in Chief he needs to set the example and lead from the front. Then someone can frag his ass
            I like that idea, 'cause he such a great leader.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kart21 View Post
              I like that idea, 'cause he such a great leader.
              He did his part, he organized the community of 300 SFs to go there.

              He can only do so much, fundraisers and golf take up time in his day.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sounds like pretty standard green weenie shit.
                ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                Comment


                • #9
                  So no combat pay AND they're still currently held under Iraqi law.
                  I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                    So no combat pay AND they're still currently held under Iraqi law.
                    What a great fucking negotiating team we have.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As the Pentagon prepares to send up to 575 new troops into Iraq, officials say, talks are underway with the Iraqis to clarify the legal protections for service members working outside the U.S embassy.

                      “We are pursuing something in writing,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday.

                      “The secretary is absolutely committed to making sure that our troops have the legal protections. He would not do that on a nod and a wink.”

                      “We are in constant contact with the Iraqi government about these arrangements and these personnel,” Kirby said.
                      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is going to be a Charlie foxtrot.
                        "Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Where was the outrage for the past 4 years? Cause they have not had protection from Iraqi law for at least that long and no deployed service member has been eligible for those hazardous/combat pays since the 2010 pullout. There has been and will continue to be more than 300 troops there in an advisory role plus seeing direct action.
                          Fuck you. We're going to Costco.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The way things are with Russia Putin might have some tanks stolen again and have them end up in Iraq. Maybe some Sam missiles too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Kerry landed in Baghdad this morning, I'm 100% confident he'll get this completely sorted out.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X