Washington Post reveals details of US military presence in Iraq ‘post-withdrawal’, 14 SEPT
The Washington Post reported that the initial agreement between Washington and Baghdad on the presence of American forces will provide for the abandonment of a small force in the Kurdistan Region whose task is to provide security guarantee for the Kurds against Iranian-backed militias.
The newspaper quoted an Iraqi military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while talking about the plans that have not yet been announced, as saying that the United States is expected to remain a small military force in the semi-autonomous region.
The United States has about 2,500 troops in Iraq and about 900 in neighboring Syria, as part of the coalition it established in 2014 to fight Islamic State. The coalition also includes troops from other countries, especially France and the United Kingdom.
Reuters revealed last week, citing several informed sources, that Washington and Baghdad reached an understanding on a plan for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq.
The sources explained that the plan includes the exit of hundreds of coalition forces by September 2025 and the rest by the end of the following year.
Reuters reported that the plan has been largely agreed and is waiting for final approval from the two countries and a date for its announcement.
The official announcement was initially scheduled to be issued weeks ago, the sources said, but it was postponed due to the regional escalation linked to the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip and to settle some of the remaining details.
The Washington Post quoted Hussein Allawi, an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohamed Shia al-Sudani, as saying that there will soon be a joint announcement on the planned withdrawal.
Allawi added that Baghdad “wants the relationship with the United States to return to what it was before 2014,” noting that “the need for an international coalition ended with the defeat of ISIS, and now the Iraqi forces are fully capable of dealing with the security file efficiently.”
The White House and the US Department of Defense did not respond to the newspaper’s requests for comment, as did Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder, at a press conference on Thursday, refused to confirm the withdrawal plan.
If the withdrawal is complete, it will be the second time the United States has withdrawn most of its forces from Iraq since it overthrew the regime of former President Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The newspaper says that “as with the first American exit in 2011, the American withdrawal is likely to leave behind an Iraq burdened with major security weaknesses, sectarian divisions and corruption, which are problems that helped in the emergence of ISIS in its time.”
Dana Stroll, a former senior Pentagon official who is currently a research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the return of U.S. forces a decade ago became necessary when Iraqi security forces largely collapsed amid ISIS attacks.
“I doubt that any U.S. president will send troops back if Iraqi leaders don’t take steps to prioritize the counterterrorism mission,” Strol adds.
This must “include preventing the country from becoming a playground for Iran, addressing rampant corruption, providing official security forces with resources and empowerment and ensuring that the government responds to the needs of all Iraqis.”
According to sources familiar with the secret talks, some U.S. lawmakers were briefed on withdrawal plans.
Among them is Rep. Adam Smith, the most prominent Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, who described the future presence of U.S. forces as a major political challenge for Iraqi leaders.
“The Iraqi people prefer that there are no American forces, and they prefer that there is no ISIS either, and they understand that we are helping to solve this problem,” Smith said in an interview with the newspaper.
“The Iraqis want us to leave, and they want to know how to achieve that. That’s not easy.”
Democratic Senator Jack Reid, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the issue combined a set of complex interests for both countries.
“The Iraqis are aware that our presence provides stability, but there is also a danger to our forces,” he added.
Reid noted that US officials were not happy that the new Iranian president, Massoud Bazhkian, made Iraq its first foreign destination, as the Sudanese officially received him on Wednesday.
Republican Rep. Corey Mills, an Iraq war veteran and a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, said he was particularly concerned about Iran’s influence and the militias it backs.
Although Mills is not opposed to withdrawal in principle, he stressed the need for a plan to ensure the stability of Iraq, “I think you have an obligation, if you destabilize a country, to help it stabilize again.”
The agreement comes after more than six months of talks between Baghdad and Washington that Sudan began in January amid attacks by Iranian-backed Iraqi armed groups on U.S. forces stationed at bases in Iraq.
Attacks using rockets and drones killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded dozens, leading to several rounds of deadly U.S. response that threatened the government’s efforts to stabilize Iraq after years of turmoil.
Al-Sudani said earlier that U.S. forces, while appreciating their assistance, had become an attraction for instability, being frequently targeted and usually responded with attacks without coordination with the Iraqi government.
No comments:
Post a Comment