Sam Smith

Barack Obama has repeatedly talked about removing all combat troops from Iraq but neither the media nor his supporters have paid much attention to the critical adjective: combat.Left in Iraq will be an uncertain number of "non-combat" troops. Among these will be 100,000 mercenaries that Minnesota Public Radio politely calls "the parallel army. . . filling in the gaps." Given that we have about regular 150,000 troops there now - both combat and non-combat - that's quite a few gaps being filled.The other group being left in Iraq are "non-combat troops" estimated at somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 - or about the same number of troops we had in Vietnam in early 1965. According to war secretary Robert Gates, the number will be "several tens of thousands."What's the difference between combat and non-combat troops? The former are assigned to offensive operations while, as Amy Zalman puts it, non-combat troops "may provide training and mentoring, assist Iraqi troops, conduct intelligence and communications functions, among other tasks."It is worth noting, however, that the troops left behind are good enough at combat to "provide training and mentoring," not to mention their ability to "assist Iraqi troops" that presumably will want, from time to time, to engage in combat. Writes Zalman, "The New York Times notes that the plan may seek to meet Obama's plan by 'remissioning' combat troops as non-combat forces and, moreover, that some may continue to conduct patrols with Iraqi forces, which is essentially a combat function.Admittedly the Status of Forces Agreement provide for a total departure by the end of 2011, but that's a long way off. In any case, what is clear is that Obama's verbal sleight of hand is more than a little misleading.