The US should completely withdraw from Iraq

ANDafter negotiations that lasted most of a year, U.S. and Iraqi officials finally reached an agreement on Friday on the U.S. presence in Iraq — which, frankly, is long overdue.

Although U.S. officials insist that Washington will not withdraw all 2,500 troops from the country and hesitate to use the term “withdrawal,” the United States will reduce deployments over the next two years. Under a two-phase plan unveiled on September 27, the US-backed anti-Islamic mission (IS) in Iraq will formally end by September 2025 and remove US troops from some bases in the country. In a second phase, Iraq agreed to allow the U.S. military to continue using Iraq to support ongoing operations against Islamic State in neighboring Syria, where about 900 U.S. troops are stationed, through 2026, according to the Associated Press.

The statement is likely to reassure members of the national security establishment – lawmakers, commentators and former generals alike – who are forever terrified of a complete U.S. withdrawal and are quick to argue that it would be dangerous to U.S. interests. Earlier this month, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers wrote on X: “Withdrawing from Iraq in this way would benefit and embolden Iran and ISIS. “I am deeply concerned about the impact such a decision will have on our national security.” Retired Gen. Joseph Votel, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, also argued that a U.S. departure would inevitably result in a resurgence of IS seeking to fill the vacuum left behind.

But this criticism does not stand up to scrutiny. The US needs a clean breakthrough, not a condition-based transformation that could extend its mission for years to come. (The Biden administration declined to provide details on how many U.S. troops remain in Iraq.)

First, it should be noted that the United States has already achieved its goals in the fight against IS in Iraq. From the moment the Obama administration assembled a large coalition and began striking IS positions in September 2014, the U.S. mission was clear and tangible: eliminate the IS territorial caliphate, which at its peak was as large as the United Kingdom, numbering about 8 million people, and made about $1 million a day selling oil on the black market. At the time, IS was a highly committed adversary and one of the richest terrorist organizations in history, boasting tens of thousands of fighters from over 80 countries.

However, IS has always had a fundamental weakness: it had no friends, let alone allies, and alienated everyone in its path. The group’s total depravity of the local population, as well as its desire to displace governments, ultimately led to its undoing. The West, led by the US, perceived IS as a magnet for jihadists who wanted to attack its people. Minorities such as Kurds and Yezidis saw IS as a band of messianic, bloodthirsty brutes who wanted to annihilate their communities. And countries that otherwise had intense geopolitical rivalries with each other – Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Gulf states, to name a few – all agreed that destroying IS was in their common interest.

The results speak for themselves. Thanks to an intense three-year US bombing operation, coupled with a fierce ground campaign involving everyone from US Special Forces and the Iraqi Army to the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iran-backed Shiite militias, IS’s advance was halted and withdrawn. Already in December 2017, the Iraqi government declared that the territorial caliphate of IS was consigned to the dustbin of history (a similar declaration was made in Syria about 15 months later). The caliphate remains eliminated to this day, so much so that earlier this year a senior US official attended an event organized by the think tank to mark the 5th anniversary of its defeat.

Many residents of the Beltway say that just because IS’s territorial caliphate is no more does not mean the threat is over. This is a valid concern; IS is reportedly on track to more than double the number of attacks in Iraq and Syria compared to last year.

But to think that the entire anti-Islamic State effort will result in exposing the absence of U.S. troops is to leave all other local actors inactive. The Iraqi government, the Turks, the Russians, and even the hated Assad regime still have a vested interest in ensuring that IS does not reestablish its caliphate. Their military capabilities against Islamic State are also better today than when the mission began a decade ago. The Iraqi army is as adept at planning, organizing and conducting independent operations against IS affiliates on the country’s periphery as ever before. The same can be said about the peshmerga, which has improved mission planning and counterinsurgency operations in its area of ​​responsibility, according to the Department of Defense Inspector General responsible for the counter-IS mission.

The United States would still have options even if troops were withdrawn completely. The U.S. intelligence community would certainly remain focused on this group and would not hesitate to take action if an imminent plot was detected or a high-profile terrorist reared its head. The United States has proven that it can achieve both without a ground presence. In August 2022, a year after the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, Washington killed al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri in a drone attack. In January this year, the United States warned Iran of an impending attack by the Islamic State, which ultimately took place. In March, the United States did the same to Russia, providing very detailed intelligence about an IS plot in Moscow that the Russians unfortunately failed to stop.

Is IS completely disabled? No, but that’s the wrong question. The real question is whether U.S. interests are best served by remaining in Iraq forever, especially when it creates even more security problems.

The United States’ ground presence is a gift to Iran and its allied militias in the Middle East. This is because the presence of American bases on foreign soil provides them with a rallying call and provides a nearby target; U.S. troops have been targeted more than 200 times since October, largely because of Washington’s support for Israel. One of those attacks, which took place in late January, killed three U.S. personnel at a small facility in Jordan, near its border with Iraq and Syria.

President Biden retaliated by striking dozens of militia and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps positions in Iraq and Syria. However, rocket attacks resumed in July, and in August five US soldiers were injured when two rockets hit Al-Asad Air Base. In other words, the United States is taking unnecessary risks in the name of a mission that was accomplished many years earlier.

The Biden administration has set the stage for a more normal, business-like relationship with the Iraqi government. The outstanding question that still needs to be resolved is whether the next president will finally realize that the United States has achieved everything it could in Iraq. And if so, when?