WASHINGTON DC, United States (Kurdistan 24) “To be clear, the United States is not withdrawing from Iraq,” a senior administration official said, as he, along with a senior U.S. defense official, briefed reporters on Friday on the future of Washington’s security relations with Baghdad.
In the course of the briefing, as journalists pressed for clarity, the senior defense official described the Kurdistan Region as “a very productive location from which to do our counter-ISIS operations.”
Briefing was to Clarify US-Iraqi Understanding, but Questions Remain
The purpose of the briefing was to clarify the status of discussions between the U,S. and Iraq on a “Transition Plan for Combined Joint Task Force—Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq” (the formal name for the anti-ISIS Coalition), as the Pentagon and State Department titled the briefing.
But the event actually left journalists befuddled, with many of their questions unanswered. What exactly had the U.S. and Iraq agreed upon?
Two things were clear. One is that the Coalition’s mission in most of Iraq will end in September 2025. Security relations between Iraq and the U.S., as well as Iraq’s ties with some of the other members of the Coalition, will transition then from multilateral to bilateral relations.
The Coalition’s mission in the Kurdistan Region will last longer: “until at least September 2026, subject to conditions on the ground and, obviously, consultations among future political leaders of Iraq, the United States, and Coalition members,” the senior administration official explained.
The ostensible reason for the difference is that “the U.S. and Iraq recognize that ISIS in Syria remains a significant threat to the region and are committed to continued working to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS,” he said.
The forces of the anti-ISIS Coalition in Syria are supplied out of the Kurdistan Region. Hence, the apparent need for extending the Coalition presence in Erbil.
But doing so also provides flexibility in regard to the future of the anti-ISIS Coalition in Iraq as a whole. If the situation deteriorates, it will be easier to surge troops back into the country.
Whatever the reason, the extension of the Coalition presence in Erbil will be welcomed by the Kurdish leadership.
Indeed, when the long-time Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani, now head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), visited Baghdad in July, he met with the U.S. ambassador, Alina Romanowski.
Barzani advised Romanowski that the continued presence of Coalition forces is a national issue transcending party lines, underscoring the importance of considering Iraq's stability and national interests.
The U.S. is Not Leaving Iraq—this is a Transition
The second point that the two officials made clear in their briefing is that the U.S. is not leaving Iraq. Rather, this is a transition—“an evolution of the military mission in Iraq,” in the words of the senior administration official.
He stressed that while “ISIS is down, they are not out” and “ISIS continues to pose a real threat, although diminished, in Iraq and the wider region.”
“We will continue to work with the Iraqi Security Force, including the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, to build up their capabilities and ensure an Iraqi-led enduring defeat of ISIS,” he added.
However, when journalists pressed for clarification of the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq—like how many troops would remain, where would they be based, etc.—the general response was that those details are still under discussion.
“We’re not going to speak to our plans concerning specific base locations or troop numbers,” the senior defense official responded, as he replied to one such question.
“We have been, and will continue to be, in active dialogue with the government of Iraq about how our bilateral relationship will evolve, which will certainly include changes to our force posture and troop numbers,” he continued. “For now, that remains in a planning process and under review.”
Even with such reluctance from the briefers to provide details on future U.S. deployments in Iraq, it did seem reasonable to conclude that one key reason for keeping troops in Erbil was to supply the forces that will continue to fight ISIS in Syria.
But even this, the briefers would not confirm. However, the senior defense official did respond to such a question with an expression of appreciation of the ties between the U.S. and the KRG.
“Just to speak about Erbil,” he said, “we do, of course, have a significant presence there and a strong partnership with the Kurdish Regional Government that is the host under the Iraqi federal government as well, and so that’s been a very productive location from which to do our counter-ISIS operations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment