user: Write a summary based on this article:

Mr. Trump’s initial executive order shutting the door to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries included Iraq. That order has been stayed by the courts and is expected to be replaced soon. 
  
 Mr. Mattis said on Sunday that he had not seen the new executive order. “But right now,” he said, “I’m assured that we will take steps to allow those who have fought alongside us to be allowed into the United States.” 
  
 His remarks came as Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the commander of the United States’ war effort in Iraq, said that American trainers and advisers had moved closer to the front lines of Mosul, where the fight to retake the western half of the city from the Islamic State started over the weekend. 
  
 “It is true that we’re operating closer and deeper into Iraqi formations,” General Townsend said at a news conference with Mr. Mattis in Baghdad, acknowledging a shift approved in the Obama administration’s final weeks. 
  
 While Mr. Trump’s policy pronouncements have unsettled allies around the world, they have landed especially hard in Iraq, where about 5,000 American troops are assisting Iraqi forces in the fight against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. 
  
 A former Iraqi ambassador to Washington, Lukman Faily, said last month that Iraqis were unsettled by Mr. Trump’s moves, including the travel ban, and wondered whether the United States even wanted a long-term relationship with Iraq. 
  
 On Monday, American and Iraqi officials did their best to put forward a united front at a time when a critical battle against the Islamic State is intensifying. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 Mr. Mattis, after meeting with his Iraqi counterpart and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said the militant Sunni group’s days were numbered. “They are going to be shown to be who they are, which is a bunch of murderous relics,” he said. 
  
 Sabeh Al Noman, a spokesman for Iraq’s counterterrorism services, suggested that Mr. Trump’s remarks on oil, at least, had caused no lasting damage. Asked in a news conference in Baghdad whether Iraq was worried that the Trump administration would try to steal its oil, he said, “We will trust your government, so we won’t worry about that.” 
  
 Apache helicopter gunships as well as American and other allied artillery are set to strike Islamic State targets in and around western Mosul, as they have for weeks in the fight to reclaim what was once Iraq’s second-largest city, officials said. 
  
 American commanders estimate that 2,000 to 3,000 Islamic State fighters remain hunkered down in western Mosul. 
  
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
  
 “Some are hard-core and will stand and fight and die in place, some will want to escape, some will attempt to quietly quit the fight, and some will sympathize with the enemy but are not now participating,” Col. John Dorrian, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an email. “And then, unfortunately, some will be pressed into the fight under threat of death and other harsh retribution.” 
  
 Mr. Trump has asked the Pentagon to present a plan for accelerating the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. 
  
 While defense officials have yet to present him with new options, many Pentagon officials have been operating under the assumption that Mr. Trump will be more willing than President Barack Obama to sign off on having American troops closer to the battlefield. 
  
 Yet it was in the final weeks of Mr. Obama’s presidency that the move closer to the front lines was put in place, as Iraqi security forces began their push to retake eastern Mosul from the Islamic State. 
  
 When Mr. Obama authorized sending the first group of American trainers and advisers back to Iraq in 2014, he said he did not want them getting close to the fight, insisting that it be an Iraqi-led effort. With the exception of raids by Special Forces, American troops had largely stayed off the battlefield, embedded with Iraqi officers at the brigade level. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 That changed in November, United States military officials said Monday, when the administration allowed American trainers and advisers to move closer to the battlefield for the Mosul operation. 
  
 The change, military officials said, will allow for quicker response times, particularly when it comes to calling in airstrikes. 
  
 Ever since the start of United States-led airstrikes against the Islamic State, in August 2014, American pilots have complained that depending on Iraqi troops to call in airstrikes makes for slow response times. 
  
 Now, two years into the war against the Islamic State and in the middle of the fight to retake Mosul, American commanders said on Monday that operations were speeding up. For one thing, they said, the Iraqi ground troops are now much sharper. 
  
 Recently, “one American commander said, ‘I’m watching an army that I know is Iraqi, but if I step back, I wouldn’t know they were not American,’ ” said Brig. Gen. Matthew C. Isler, the deputy commander in charge of coordinating air support for the Iraqi ground forces. 
  
 But the fight for western Mosul is expected to be intense. Since capturing the city, Islamic State fighters “have had two years to prepare” for the coming assault, said Brig. Gen. Hugh McAslan of New Zealand, one of the commanders of the American-led coalition in Iraq. “There are some very elaborate defenses in West Mosul.” 
  
 Over the weekend, airplanes dropped leaflets in West Mosul appealing to Islamic State fighters to surrender. 
  
 While in Baghdad, Mr. Mattis plans to talk with Iraqi officials as well as American military commanders. “I need to get current on the situation” in Iraq, he said. “And the only way you can do this is talking to the people on the ground.” 
  
 He said that although power had been transferred in Washington, the rules of engagement in Iraq had not changed, and American Special Forces would not get closer to the fighting in western Mosul than they had in eastern Mosul, which had largely been cleared of militant control. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 “The U.S. forces continue in the same role as they did in East Mosul,” Mr. Mattis said, adding that coalition forces fighting the Islamic State would “continue with the accelerated effort” to destroy the group. ||||| Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis visited Baghdad on Feb. 20. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post) 
  
 BAGHDAD — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made his first trip to Iraq as Pentagon chief on Monday to determine what is needed to accelerate the campaign against the Islamic State, hours after rejecting a suggestion by President Trump that the United States might take Iraq’s oil. 
  
 “I think all of us here in this room — all of us in America — have generally paid for our gas and oil all along, and I am sure we will continue to do so in the future,” Mattis said during a meeting with reporters Sunday night. “We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil.” 
  
 Mattis’s rejection of the idea came after repeated claims by Trump that the United States should have taken Iraq’s oil during the Iraq War. Trump suggested last month that “maybe we’ll get another chance” to do so during a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency, generating new concerns about his position. 
  
 The defense secretary’s comments are one of several ways in which he has tried to sound a reassuring tone for allies since leaving Washington last week. In both Brussels and Munich, he promised audiences that the Trump administration will maintain its obligation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which calls for all members to help if one is attacked, but warned that America might “moderate” its support in other ways to nations who do not meet defense spending guidelines set by NATO. 
  
 [Defense Secretary Mattis disagrees with Trump, says he does not see media as the enemy] 
  
 In Iraq, Mattis anticipates getting a better sense for the political situation, the enemy and the coalition’s Iraqi partners, he said. This visit comes with less than two weeks before Mattis, a retired Marine general and Iraq War veteran, is expected to deliver to the White House a set of recommendations that could include ordering more troops into Iraq or Syria or delegating more powers to battlefield commanders to streamline decision-making. 
  
 “We’re going to make sure we’re certain we’ve got good, shared situation awareness of what we face as we work together and fight alongside each other to destroy ISIS,” Mattis said. 
  
 One day before Mattis’s trip to Iraq, local forces there launched an offensive to take back the western side of Mosul, the country’s second-largest city. Militants seized it in June 2014 as they swept across the western and northern parts of the country and the Iraqi military crumbled. The government has since taken back several key cities, including Fallujah and Ramadi, and last month liberated the eastern half of Mosul. 
  
 Mattis said U.S. military advisers will have “the same role” that they did during the liberation of eastern Mosul on the western half of the city, an indication they will be near the front lines when Iraqi troops attack, but not directly involved in fighting unless something unexpected happens. Combat is expected to be fierce, with block-by-block engagements against fighters in thickly settled neighborhoods. 
  
 “The coalition forces are in support of this operation, and we will continue … with the accelerated effort to destroy ISIS,” Mattis said. 
  
 Mattis may also be asked by senior Iraqi officials to address the Trump administration’s plan to issue a new executive order that could restrict travel from some Middle Eastern and African countries. The first one, issued Jan. 27, caused a backlash as scores of people were detained at U.S. airports. It was suspended earlier this month in federal court, and a new “streamlined” version could be introduced within a week. 
  
 Mattis, who was surprised to find that the original version did not include any special considerations for Iraqi interpreters who served the U.S. military in combat, said Sunday that he has not seen a draft of Trump’s forthcoming executive order, but was given assurances that “we will take steps to allow those who have fought alongside us, for example,” to enter the country. 
  
 “They will have been vetted, obviously, by their performance on the battlefield as well as by the normal procedures, and I’m sure we’ll work through this quickly,” Mattis said. 
  
 The countries affected by the original ban were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. 
  
 Related stories: 
  
 Mattis attempts to reassure NATO allies as the Trump administration deals with fallout from Flynn’s ouster 
  
 Placing Russia first among threats, Mattis warns of Kremlin attempts to ‘break’ NATO 
  
 Mattis makes first trip to Europe as Pentagon chief while mulling changes in Afghanistan and anti-ISIS fight 
  
 Iraq resumes offensive to retake Mosul from Islamic State, prime minister says ||||| Defense Secretary Jim Mattis distanced himself from President Trump's assessment of the media, stating in a Feb. 19 interview that he had no problems with the press. (Reuters) 
  
 ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Sunday that he does not see the media as the enemy of the American people, disagreeing with a claim made Friday by President Trump about numerous outlets. 
  
 Mattis, asked directly about Trump’s criticism of the media, said he has had “some rather contentious times with the press” but considers the institution “a constituency that we deal with.” The defense secretary added: “I don’t have any issues with the press myself.” 
  
 The comments came during a trip to Europe and the Middle East intended to reassure allies and gather information about ongoing operations. Mattis, a retired Marine general, also acknowledged concerns about the administration raised by Army Gen. Raymond “Tony” Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command. Thomas said at a conference Tuesday that “our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil” and that he hopes “they sort it out soon because we’re a nation at war.” 
  
 [Defense Secretary Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending] 
  
 Mattis said Sunday that he has been talking with a “fair number of military commanders around the world” and believes Thomas was “probably taken a bit out of context because we all want to see everything moving smoothly.” But Mattis also acknowledged the chaotic nature of Trump’s administration so far. 
  
 “Welcome to democracy,” Mattis said. “It’s at times wildly contentious. It’s at times quite sporting. But the bottom line is this is the best form of government that we can come up with. So, the military’s job is to hold the line, and to hold the line, and to hold the line while our government sorts out the way ahead and our people speak. We don’t have any disarray inside the military, and that’s where my responsibility resides.” 
  
 [Pence and Merkel embrace NATO but differ on transatlantic partnership] 
  
 The comments came after a week in which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn resigned as White House national security adviser over revelations that he spoke about sanctions imposed on Moscow by the Obama administration with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak before Trump took office. Flynn resigned under pressure just 24 days into the new administration after it became clear that he had not disclosed all details about his conversation to Vice President Pence. 
  
 On Friday, Trump tweeted that “FAKE NEWS media” is not his enemy, it is the “enemy of the American People!” He specifically cited the “failing” New York Times, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and CNN, though he has at other times accused other news outlets of also reporting “fake” stories. 
  
 Trump attacked the media again Saturday at an unusual campaign-style rally, saying the media is dishonest and “has published one false story after another, with no sources, even though they pretend they have them.” 
  
 “They make them up in many cases,” he added. “They just don’t want to report the truth. And they’ve been calling us wrong now for two years. They don’t get it. But they’re starting to get it. I can tell you that. They’ve become a big part of the problem. They are part of a corrupt system.” 
  
 [‘That’s how dictators get started’: McCain criticizes Trump for calling media ‘the enemy] 
  
 White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and lawmakers of both political parties weigh in on President Trump's Feb. 17 tweet calling several news outlets "the enemy of the American People." (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post) 
  
 Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview recorded for broadcast on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday that the American people should take Trump’s allegations against the media “seriously.” In particular, he questioned the use of anonymous sources, as the White House continues to deal with leaks. 
  
 “If the theory is that the press is supposed to be a free forum of information to speak to the American people, I think it ought to be accurate,” Priebus said. “And I think we’ve gotten to a place … where the media is willing to run with unnamed sources, apparently false leaked documents, to create stories.” 
  
 1 of 83 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × A look at President Trump’s first 100 days View Photos The beginning of the president’s term has featured controversial executive orders and frequent conflicts with the media. Caption The beginning of the president’s term has featured controversial executive orders and frequent conflicts with the media. March 17, 2017 President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, walk to Marine One at the White House en route to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
  
 Related stories: 
  
 Mattis attempts to reassure NATO allies as the Trump administration deals with fallout from Flynn’s ouster 
  
 Placing Russia first among threats, Mattis warns of Kremlin attempts to ‘break’ NATO 
  
 Mattis makes first trip to Europe as Pentagon chief while mulling changes in Afghanistan and anti-ISIS fight ||||| In this Jan. 21, 2017, photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. No one knows how seriously to take Trump’s threat to seize Iraq’s oil. Doing so would involve... (Associated Press) 
  
 In this Jan. 21, 2017, photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. No one knows how seriously to take Trump’s threat to seize Iraq’s oil. Doing so would involve extraordinary costs and risk confrontation with America’s best ground partner against the Islamic... (Associated Press) 
  
 In this Jan. 21, 2017, photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. No one knows how seriously to take Trump’s threat to seize Iraq’s oil. Doing so would involve extraordinary costs and risk confrontation with America’s best ground partner against the Islamic... (Associated Press) In this Jan. 21, 2017, photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. No one knows how seriously to take Trump’s threat to seize Iraq’s oil. Doing so would involve... (Associated Press) 
  
 WASHINGTON (AP) — No one knows how seriously to take President Donald Trump's threat to seize Iraq's oil. 
  
 Doing so would involve extraordinary costs and risk confrontation with America's best ground partner against the Islamic State group, but the president told the CIA this weekend, "Maybe you'll have another chance." 
  
 The recycled campaign comment is raising concerns about Trump's understanding of the delicate Middle East politics involved in the U.S.-led effort against extremist groups. Trump has said he was opposed to the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But on the campaign trail and again on Saturday, the day after his inauguration, he suggested the costly and deadly occupation of the country might have been offset somewhat if the United States had taken the country's rich petroleum reserves. 
  
 "To the victor belong the spoils," Trump told members of the intelligence community, saying he first argued this case for "economic reasons." He said it made sense as a counterterrorism approach to defeating the IS group "because that's where they made their money in the first place." 
  
 "So we should have kept the oil," he said. "But, OK, maybe you'll have another chance." 
  
 The statement ignores the precedent of hundreds of years of American history and presidents who have tended to pour money and aid back into countries the United States has fought in major wars. The U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan, with the permission of those nations, but did not take possession of their natural resources. And taking Iraq's reserves, the world's fifth largest, would require an immense investment of resources and manpower in a country that the United States couldn't quell after spending more than $2 trillion and deploying at one point more than 170,000 troops. 
  
 U.S. enemies and friends would oppose the move. While Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has accepted U.S. help to retake IS-held territory in his country, he has repeatedly asserted Iraqi sovereignty. He said of Trump's oil vow in November, "I am going to judge him by what he does later." 
  
 Asked about the matter Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer stressed Trump's economic argument. 
  
 "We want to be sure our interests are protected," he told reporters. "We're going into a country for a cause. He wants to be sure America is getting something out of it for the commitment and sacrifice it is making." 
  
 There is uncertainty as to where Trump's idea derives from, though the president has noted that taking the oil is something "I have long said." Hints of this notion existed in some of the pre-2003 rhetoric from the Bush administration about the Iraq war "paying for itself." But top advisers to President George W. Bush have stressed how the future of Iraq's resources were pointedly left out of decision-making related to the invasion so as not to fuel a perception that the war was driven by oil concerns. 
  
 Bush "almost bent over backwards not to make a special effort to gain access for us to the oil resources," John Negroponte, who was Bush's director of national intelligence, told CNN. 
  
 Regarding Trump, former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told NBC, "I have no clue what he's talking about." 
  
 Taking the oil would require a permanent U.S. occupation, or at least until Iraq's 140 billion barrels of crude run out, and a large presence of American soldiers to guard sometimes isolated oil fields and infrastructure. Such a mission would be highly unpopular with Iraqis, whose hearts and minds the U.S. is still try to win to defeat groups such as IS and al-Qaida. 
  
 "This is totally wrong," said Zaher Aziz, a 42-year-old owner of a market stand in Irbil. "They came here by themselves and occupied Iraq. And now they want the Iraqis to pay for that?" 
  
 However unrealistic Trump's suggestion, intelligence officials believe more has to be done to cut off Islamic State oil revenues. The group seized significant oil when it stormed across Syria's border in 2014 and seized the city of Mosul and large swaths of Iraqi territory. The Treasury Department estimated that IS raked in $500 million from oil and gas sales in 2015. That figure is likely lower now as a result of U.S.-led operations, but officials say oil continues to fund the group's recruitment and far-flung terrorist activities. 
  
 "In terms of oil helping establish ISIS, of course that's oversimplification," said Hassan Hassan, co-author of the book "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror," using an alternate acronym from the militants. He said oil was a small part of the group's "origins and early years," when it morphed from an al-Qaida branch to an organization claiming a worldwide caliphate. 
  
 ___ 
  
 AP videojournalist Balint Szlanko in Irbil, Iraq, contributed to this report. |||||

Summary:

assistant: – President Trump has noted more than once he thinks we should've taken Iraq's oil when we had the chance (and suggests that option may still be on the table), but his secretary of defense is pushing a different message—what the New York Times characterizes as comments that would previously have been deemed "unthinkable" under other administrations—on the eve of his first visit to the Middle East country as head of the Pentagon. "We're not in Iraq to seize anybody's oil," James Mattis told reporters Sunday night, per the Washington Post. Mattis added that US citizens have "generally paid for our gas and oil all along," and he doesn't see why that wouldn't continue. Mattis was traveling to Iraq Monday to gather intel and scope out the best ways to fight ISIS, a topic for which he's scheduled to lay out a game plan in a couple of weeks. The AP reported last month that Trump has noted that his enthusiasm for taking Iraq's oil is something "I have long said." The Post and CNN, meanwhile, report that Trump more recently brought up the subject the day after his inauguration—when he said during a CIA visit, "We should have kept the oil. Maybe we'll have another chance"—and also during an ABC News interview a few days later, in which he added, "You wouldn't have ISIS if we took the oil." Last week, the defense secretary smoothed over things with NATO members by telling them the US still values the group, despite Trump's past comments, while on Sunday Mattis said he doesn't think the media is an enemy of the American people like his boss does. (What may be more worrisome for Iraq than ISIS: Mosul's dam.)