Something that really shouldn’t be ignored in any debate about honoring the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq: some of its most basic terms are tremendously unclear. F’r instance: in a war without a front line, what’s the difference between a combat troop and an adviser?

According to McClatchy’s translation of the SOFA, U.S. combat troops have to be out of Iraqi "cities, villages and towns" by June 30. But, as the New York Times‘ Elizabeth Bumiller admirably ponders, U.S. adviser forces, who train and mentor Iraqi security forces, engage in a fair amount of combat when they support their Iraqi counterparts. In the words of one defense wonk she quotes:

“If you’re in combat, it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re an adviser: you’re risking your life,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group. “The bullets don’t have ‘adviser’ stenciled on some and ‘combat unit’ on another.”

Would you have to require U.S. forces not to return fire? That’s unacceptable to anyone. Would you have to withdraw all U.S. forces in order to honor the spirit of the accord? Unlikely that Gen. Odierno would accept that, either. So what does this mean, actually? Bumiller reports that the Pentagon is still mulling it over. It’ll be definitely something to look for in Odierno’s forthcoming rules of engagement, at least.

I write this as something of a caveat to my earlier posts. There are many indications that military leaders in particular are less than keen about abiding by the SOFA. But there are also ambiguous circumstances where people, in good faith, may not be sure about what the SOFA requires and what’s fair.

Crossposted to The Streak.