Pentagon Prepares Tougher Options on Fighting Militants to Show Trump Team
Proposals include limiting White House operational oversight and giving military more tactical authority WSJ Dec 10 16
U.S. troops stood guard last month outside an Iraqi military base in the formerly Islamic State-held town of Bartila east of Mosul. PHOTO: AHMED JALIL/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon is drawing up proposals to offer to the Trump administration designed to intensify the U.S. campaign against Islamic State, including reducing White House oversight of operational decisions and moving some tactical authority back to the Pentagon, U.S. military and congressional officials say.
The options are being assembled in anticipation of demands byDonald Trump and his team, who have called for a tougher military campaign against the extremist group.
Military officials said they are considering presenting options on a number of fronts. They are likely to include easing restrictions on the precise number of American troops needed to carry out a particular mission, and relaxing rules that set the level of Washington review needed before an operation or airstrike may be conducted, officials said.
RELATED STORIES
- Islamic State Girds to Defend Remote Syria Outpost (Dec. 2, 2016)
- Giuliani Calls Defeating Islamic State Early Focus for Trump (Nov. 14, 2016)
- Donald Trump Calls for a New War on Terror (Aug. 15, 2016)
The potential recommendations aren’t likely to fundamentally change the U.S. strategy for fighting Islamic State, which relies on indigenous forces and relatively few American advisers. But they open prospects for the new administration to return more battlefield decision-making to the military, officials said.
Military officials familiar with the internal discussions at the Pentagon said officers aren’t taking advocacy positions on issues, but are prepared to answer the questions the new administration will have and make proposals as requested.
“Once the new administration is in place, we will offer recommendations going forward, should the new administration wish to amend those assumptions or the current approach,” a military official said.
Military officials stressed they only have one commander in chief, President Barack Obama. But they also say they must be prepared for an incoming administration that has already publicly signaled an interest in intensifying the fight against Islamic State.
The Pentagon’s preparations for the Trump transition are like those for any new administration. When Mr. Obama took office in 2009 with plans to wind down the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon prepared options acceptable to the military that also would address the new president’s goals, officials said.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, tapped to serve as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, has said the new administration will do a full reassessment of the authorities at the military’s disposal to execute the fight against Islamic State. The military’s proposals will feed into Mr. Flynn’s review, an official close to the Trump transition team said.
‘Part of the problem is, is that inside of the military right now…their hands are tied. ’
One result of the increased latitude, officials acknowledged, is the potential for deploying more U.S. forces. The Obama White House’s approach has been to use local forces and carefully limit the exposure of American personnel to combat.
But that stance has also drawn criticism from Republicans and some in the military that the White House is overly cautious and deliberative when requests to conduct operations are put before them.
“Part of the problem is, is that inside of the military right now…their hands are tied,” Gen. Flynn said in a recent FOX News interview.
White House officials said they approve all requests for operations and authorities they receive. For example, about 18 months ago, the White House loosened a restriction requiring that an airstrike cause no collateral civilian casualties. In that instance, the change expanded to 10 the number of civilians who could be potentially killed by accident if the value of the target was deemed high enough, military officials said.
“As Secretary [Ash] Carter has said repeatedly, every time he and General Dunford have asked the president for more capability in the fight against ISIL, he has agreed to that request,” said deputy Pentagon press secretary Gordon Trowbridge.
Currently, so-called business rules tightly govern how many forces the Pentagon can have in play. There are about 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and up to 300 special-operations forces personnel in Syria. In Afghanistan, U.S. troop strength is due to drop this month from about 9,800 to 8,400 under Obama administration directions.
In the past, the White House has retained strict oversight over the number of forces used in various missions. Some requests for more troops have required weeks or even months to win approval, officials say.
In one instance in the past year, military officials proposed a high-risk operation in Syria relying on about two dozen commandos. By the time the operation was ready to go and was about to be approved, the number of troops needed for the mission had grown to about 30 individuals. That change prompted White House officials to demand to know why it had expanded, senior military officials said.
U.S. officials defended the White House oversight in that instance, because of the extreme perils to U.S. forces associated with the operation.
Other options under consideration for the new administration would give the military more leeway to go after militants, military officials said. For example, the U.S. military has been conducting an effective campaign against Islamic State within the coastal city of Sirte, in northern Libya, under current authorities allowing it to take necessary measures in the city.
But if U.S. forces need to target a militant or group of fighters as little as 3 miles outside of the city—beyond what is known as the “area of active hostilities”—doing so currently requires White House approval, a senior military official said.
Such approval can potentially blunt the military’s effectiveness by slowing down the approval process, officials said. For example, it took eight months before the White House approved the airstrike that targeted an al Qaeda leader with links to Islamic State in Libya named Abu Nabil, or Wissam NajmAbd Zayd al Zubayadi, in November 2015.
But the Obama White House has granted expanded military authorities over the past year to fight Islamic State in Afghanistan and to allow the U.S. to target the Taliban under certain circumstances.
