While the Americans claim to leave Iraq by the end of 2021, it seems that a large part of these forces will continue to be present in the form of advisory missions in Iraq; Output that is not more than a “title change”.
Mehdi Poursafa: Withdrawal, or controlled chaos, is a question that many experts are asking these days about American movements in the region from Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria. As China’s power grows, Washington seems to prefer to focus its military power on the Indo-Pacific axis and form a defensive shield against China with its Asian allies, including Japan, South Korea, Australia and India; The idea, which appears to have nothing to do with the Biden administration, has been in place since 2017, when China was identified as a serious threat to the United States.
The first part of this plan, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, is almost complete; An event that, given the current situation, has plunged the future of this country into a whirlwind of various developments, and it is not clear to which group the final destiny of this country will be left. But in the eastern Mediterranean, the Americans are claiming to leave Iraq. A country where 2,500 US combat troops are currently stationed under the pretext of fighting ISIS.
Of course, the main claim of the Americans about the ability of the Iraqi forces to fight terrorist groups is completely true, and during the war against ISIS, the Iraqi government forces along with the people’s forces played a key role in countering the Takfiris.
But the main question is whether the Americans are sincere in their claim to withdraw from Iraq, or should they be expected to behave differently?
A look at the history of US withdrawal from Iraq
This is not the first time that US troops have withdrawn from Iraq. In 2006, Democrats won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and Congress, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops, given widespread American dissatisfaction with the US presence in Iraq.
The situation became so complicated that even the passage of the annual US National Defense Bill was overshadowed by this issue. Finally, with some Republicans joining the Democratic front, the Bush administration began serious negotiations with the Nouri al-Maliki administration, which led to the signing of the 2007 US-Iraq defense-security pact. The agreement called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities and the withdrawal of all of them by 2011.
With the defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 election, the implementation of this agreement was finally entrusted to the Obama administration, which ended with the final withdrawal in December 2011. However, as expected, some US troops remained in Iraq under the pretext of training Iraqi forces. The strong presence of US military companies in Iraq was also maintained under the pretext of defending US diplomatic facilities and oil companies.
In 2014, when the terrorist group ISIS began to occupy various cities and regions of Iraq, the Americans returned to Iraq in the form of an international coalition against ISIS to help the so-called Iraqi government against the terrorist group ISIS. Iraqi airspace was once again handed over to US coalition forces, which operated mainly from US bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan.
The presence of a counselor who smells of military occupation
Widespread dissatisfaction with the presence of US troops in Iraq from the Trump administration led to the withdrawal of the US military from Iraq.
From March 2020 to April of that year, US forces withdrew from four bases in the country. These bases were mostly close to the urban areas of Iraq, which exposed American forces to attacks by the Iraqi people’s forces.
In contrast, not only are major US bases in Iraqi Kurdistan and Ayn al-Assad showing the slightest sign of retreat, but extensive facilities and fortifications are being built in those areas.
Therefore, given the current situation, it can be said that the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq will be completely artificial; The setback, which is set to take effect by the end of 2021, was formally emphasized in recent talks between al-Kadhimi and Biden in Washington.
The big question is that what are the Americans going to retreat from in Iraq? The Iraqi Kurdistan Autonomous Government has already officially stated that it opposes the withdrawal of US troops from the country. This practically means that the unofficial presence of the Americans in the “Silk” base will continue, as the above base is still the most important operational base of this country in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the presence of the Americans in the Ain al-Assad base will continue, because without this base, the American forces present in Syria will practically have no operational base. There are currently about 1,000 US troops illegally present in eastern Syria and the Tanf region, and in addition to supporting Kurdish forces in eastern Syria, monitoring part of the main supply route on the Iraqi-Syrian border in al-Qaim is part of their job. Let us not forget that in the recent US attacks on the Iraqi People’s Forces, the main target bases were in this area. In recent weeks, there have been reports of US surveillance flights in the region.
It is natural that this military presence will take the form of advisory activities. In other words, American forces are actually present in Iraq, but it seems that the Iraqi army will be in control of the barracks. Such a point is practically contrary to what the Iraqi parliament emphasized in January 1998 and is a repetition of the years 2011 to 2014 in Iraq, so that this time they may return to Iraq with a terrorist threat or another American riot in the form of armed forces. Meanwhile, American media have confirmed this speculation about the reduction of the presence of American troops in Iraq.
For example, Paltico quoted several informed US officials as saying that the recent agreement between Baghdad and Washington does not mean the end of the US military presence in Iraq and that US troops will remain in the country with a new mission. Paltico had previously reported, quoting a U.S. official and two informants, that part of the U.S. military would provide logistical support and advice to Iraqi forces, and that air, intelligence, and reconnaissance forces would remain on Iraqi soil to fight ISIS.
This view has led Iraqi resistance groups, unlike political parties, to not be optimistic about al-Kadhimi’s visit and the agreement reached.
Therefore, “Abu Zia al-Saghir”, one of the commanders of Al-Hashdal Shaabi in Iraq, emphasized in an interview with an Iranian media: The United States does not care about the treaties and agreements it has with Iraq, whether security or non-security. We oppose the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil and there should be no foreign forces in our country. The United States has no legal justification for staying in Iraq.
The Americans are in need to keep Iraq
With these details, it can be said that the crisis of the American presence in Iraq will not be resolved with Al-Kazemi’s agreement with Biden. The presence of American intelligence and advisers will remain in Iraq, and this will lead to the activation of insecurity and conspiracy capabilities in this country.
In addition to this, American air domination over Iraq will remain. US aircraft are currently in control of military traffic over Iraq, and the Iraqi Air Force, which relies heavily on US F-16 fighter jets based at Balad, is in poor condition due to Lockheed Martin’s poor service.
This will allow the Americans to launch air strikes on various parts of Iraq at any time without any problems. In addition, the US Embassy in Baghdad, which covers more than the entire Vatican, is likely to serve as both a diplomatic base and a military espionage base, as does the C-ROM system to protect.
All of this means that the US military presence remains a bone of contention. It should not be forgotten, however, that Iraq and Syria are part of the final highway of the Chinese “One Belt Road” project in the eastern Mediterranean region. The recent visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister to Syria and the presentation of a quadripartite plan to the Syrian authorities show that Beijing has serious plans for this part of its agenda. The Americans do not seem to be leaving the region to their political opponents and the Chinese, regardless of this important variable.