WORRIES ABOUT U.S. TROOPS – AT 10:46 A.M. ET:  President Obama is sending 300 American advisers to Iraq, with the prospect of more.  We have already expressed concern that in an unstable environment some of their advisers could be captured, and become hostages.  We recall the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.  And another concern is being expressed – that our own allies could turn on us and imprison those advisers.  From Fox: 

Members of Congress are voicing concern that the Obama administration has not gotten strong enough assurances that U.S. troops heading to Iraq to aid the beleaguered government will be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts for any alleged offenses committed while serving there.

The inability to strike an agreement giving American troops immunity was one of the big reasons why a residual force did not stay behind after 2011. Now that hundreds of U.S. troops and military advisers are being sent back into Iraq to secure U.S. facilities and assist Iraqi security forces, some lawmakers wonder whether a "double standard" is being applied -- one that could potentially jeopardize American troops.

"If American servicemembers were not safe from legal prosecution in Iraq after December 31, 2011, they are not safe from legal prosecution today," Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in a draft letter being circulated on Capitol Hill for signatures.

Both the Pentagon and White House claimed Monday that they have received "acceptable assurances" -- via "diplomatic note" -- regarding "protections" for U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday. "We believe these protections are adequate for the short-term assessment and adviser mission our troops will be performing."

But the last time around, the Obama administration sought a more formal agreement -- asking Iraq's parliament to approve the legal protections for U.S. troops.

Colin Kahl, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011, wrote in Politico last week that administration lawyers determined the protections had to be approved by the parliament "for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution" -- though Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was willing to sign a "memorandum of understanding" offering the same assurances. Parliament did not approve the deal, and U.S. troops withdrew.

A Lamborn aide told FoxNews.com that no such demand is being made here, yet hundreds of servicemembers are returning to the country.

"They're using a different standard now," the aide said.

COMMENT:  I'll be they are.  And it's a weak standard.  When one contemplates the Obama administration, the word "competence" does not come immediately to mind.  I'm worried about those advisers.  We recently saw how we traded five dangerous terrorist from Gitmo to get back, in Afghanistan, one American soldier of dubious pedigree.  This can happen again, on a much larger scale.

June 24, 2014