Military experts and critics have raised concerns over Vice President Kamala Harris’ recent claim that there are no active-duty members of the United States military in combat zones for the first time this century. While Harris made this statement during a televised debate, experts have pointed out that the reality is more complex than her words suggest.
The Debate Over Combat Zones
During the Presidential Debate on ABC, Harris stated, “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is on active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.” While her statement may have left room for interpretation, experts argue that it oversimplifies the situation. The Pentagon clarified that while there may not be officially declared wars, U.S. troops are stationed in various dangerous locations where they face potential risks.
A Defense Official explained, “An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur. Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the Secretary of Defense.” This distinction is crucial in understanding the deployment of troops and the potential dangers they face, even if the U.S. is not currently engaged in a traditional war.
Hazardous Duty Pay and Combat Zones
Critics have pointed out that members of the military in certain regions, such as Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, have received hazardous duty pay over the past 10 months due to ongoing tensions and threats posed by groups backed by Iran. Hazardous Duty Pay is provided to service members who are exposed to hostile fire, explosions, or other hostile actions while on duty in designated areas.
Military personnel serving in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq have been eligible for hazardous duty pay for years, highlighting the ongoing risks faced by troops in these regions. Despite not being in a declared war, the presence of U.S. forces in these areas underscores the complex nature of modern military operations and the challenges they entail.
Challenges and Realities of Military Operations
Former senior director for the National Security Council, Robert Greenway, emphasized that the U.S. has maintained a continuous presence in combat zones since the Gulf War in 1991. He cited recent incidents in Syria and Iraq where U.S. troops were involved in raids against ISIS and faced attacks from Iranian-sponsored terrorists, highlighting the ongoing threats faced by military personnel.
Greenway criticized Harris for her assertion that there are no active-duty members in combat zones, pointing to recent events that demonstrate the risks and challenges faced by U.S. forces overseas. He highlighted the importance of acknowledging the reality of military operations and the sacrifices made by service members in dangerous environments.
Plans for Withdrawal and Future Deployments
Despite ongoing tensions and deployments in regions like Iraq, there have been discussions about potential withdrawals of U.S. troops from certain areas. Iraqi officials recently revealed a tentative plan for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2025, with a residual force remaining in the country. This decision reflects the evolving dynamics of U.S. military presence in the region and the efforts to balance security concerns with local considerations.
Iraqi Defense Minister Thabit al-Abbasi outlined a phased approach to the withdrawal, with the first phase starting this year and continuing until 2025. This plan underscores the shifting priorities and strategies in the region, as well as the importance of maintaining a presence while addressing local sensitivities and security challenges.
In conclusion, the debate over the presence of U.S. troops in combat zones highlights the complexities of modern military operations and the challenges faced by service members around the world. While political statements may simplify the situation, it is essential to recognize the ongoing risks and sacrifices made by military personnel in dangerous environments. The discussions around deployments, withdrawals, and future strategies underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of global security dynamics and the realities of military engagement.