ShareThis Page

Iraq gives 'assurances' on U.S. troop immunity and privileges

| Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014, 9:12 p.m.

BAGHDAD — Washington has an agreement with Baghdad on privileges and immunities for the growing number of troops based in Iraq who are helping in the fight against the Islamic State group, the U.S. ambassador said Thursday.

In an exclusive interview, Stuart Jones said Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has given assurances that Americans will receive immunity from prosecution. Under Iraq's former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that issue was a major sticking point, ultimately leading to the decision to withdraw all remaining troops in late 2011.

“That was a different situation, and those troops would have had a different role,” Jones said.

“We have the assurances that we need from the government of Iraq on privileges and immunities,” he said. “It's in the basis of our formal written communications between our governments and also based on the strategic framework agreement that is the legal basis of our partnership.”

The House on Thursday voted for a $5 billion expansion of military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq, part of a broader $585 billion Defense policy bill for Iraq and Syria. Last month, Obama authorized the deployment of up to 1,500 more troops to bolster Iraqi forces, which could more than double the total number of U.S. forces to 3,100. That's in addition to the 5,000 people working for the mission in Iraq.

The U.S.-trained and equipped Iraqi military has struggled to recover from its collapse in June, when the Islamic State captured the country's second-largest city, Mosul, and swept over much of northern and western Iraq. Iraqi commanders fled, pleas for more ammunition went unanswered, and in some cases soldiers stripped off their uniforms and ran. America initiated airstrikes in Iraq on Aug. 8, and heads a coalition backing Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces from the air.

Advisory teams, which had been based in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional capital Irbil, are fanning out to other locations in the country, including the highly volatile Anbar province in western Iraq, where troops fought some of the heaviest battles of the eight-year conflict.

This time, the troops are operating far from the front lines.

“What we're doing is airstrikes,” Jones said. “What we're doing is sharing intelligence. We're doing advise and assist, and we're doing training — and that's all we're doing.”

Part of the plan to boost Iraqi forces includes training, equipping and paying Sunni tribesmen to join the fight against the Islamic State, reminiscent of the Sunni Sahwa, or Awakening movement, which confronted al-Qaida in Iraq starting in 2006. The Pentagon plans to buy a range of arms for Iraq's tribesmen, including 5,000 AK-47s, 50 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 12,000 grenades and 50 82-mm mortars. The arms supply — described in a document that will be sent to Congress for its approval — said the estimated cost to equip an initial Anbar-based force of tribal fighters is $18.5 million, part of a $1.6 billion request to Congress that includes arming and training Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

However, recruiting the tribes has been a challenging process since many of the Sunni tribes involved in the Sahwa campaign felt a breach of trust because the American and Iraqi governments' commitment to the program waned.

“What I say to the tribes is you've got to be integrated with security forces to get the benefit of the airstrikes,” Jones said. “We can play a facilitating role, but it's only that.”

He declined to address whether ground troops will be needed to defeat the Islamic State, instead pointing to recent successes by Iraqi security forces in retaking territory, including the town of Beiji and the country's largest oil refinery.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me