The US Intervention in Iraq Involves More than the 300: Armed Drones Above, Armed Contractors Below?

I'm surprised this hasn't generated more attention: First, an article in the New York Times yesterday mentioned, right at the very end, the possibility that in addition to the 300 special operators headed back to Iraq there might also be more than a 1000 armed contractors accompanying them to pull security detail:

Two Iraqi advisers to Mr. Maliki said there would be more than 1,000 American private security guards coming to Iraq to protect the 300 military and intelligence advisers that will be here to help the Iraqi government fight ISIS, far more Americans than previously acknowledged. One adviser said the number of private guards would reach 1,700.

Under a diplomatic agreement between the American and Iraqi governments, the military advisers will be protected from prosecution if they inadvertently harm someone while working in Iraq. However, it was unclear if immunity provisions for the private guards had been worked out as well, and one of Mr. Maliki’s advisers said the topic was still under discussion.

This may just be wrong, of course, and even if accurate it does not change the fact that the US role on the ground is advisory rather than involving direct participation in combat.  That said, if true it's certainly a good example of something critics of reliance on private military contractors have long emphasized:  the misleading impression created by focusing solely on the number of U.S. armed forces on the ground when trying to comprehend the nature and extent of U.S. ground involvement.  That, plus the sheer oddity of outsourcing this sort of security function when you are talking about force protection in the context of a SOF deployment (as opposed to protection of diplomats); perhaps the quote above is overinclusive, and any inbound contractors will focus on protecting other U.S. personnel besides our SOF operators...

Of course, force protection is not just about boots on the ground.  It turns out we've got Predators bearing Hellfire missiles in the air over Iraq once more, also on a force protection mission, in addition to the more-widely appreciated surveillance flights.  This will be very convenient should key ISIS leaders rear their heads at the wrong time.

I do not mean to suggest that the President lacks authority to take these steps, or that they are bad steps as a matter of policy.  I do mean to suggest that in thinking about the nature of the U.S. intervention on both those dimensions, we need to account for its complete scale.