Iraqi Leader Calls for Withdrawal of US Troops Without Specifying Timeline

Iraqi soldiers train with U.S. troops at Camp TajiPhoto byArmy

Over the past several days, Iraq's prime minister has stated in a number of interviews that his nation has lost interest in receiving the 2,500 troops stationed there to aid in the fight against ISIS. U.S. authorities have stated that no formal demands have been made to the Pentagon or the White House as a result of this public posturing.

In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani characterized the United States' presence as disruptive, as he had previously stated in an interview with Reuters on January 10.

Sudani told Reuters that the relationship needs to be reorganized so that it cannot be used as a weapon or an excuse for anyone, whether domestic or international, to interfere with the stability in Iraq and the surrounding area.

That includes militias backed by Iran that have been attacking U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria for the last few months, increasing the frequency of their attacks from a few times a year to almost daily efforts since mid-October.

U.S. officials told Military Times on Thursday that, after a decade since the Coalition to Defeat ISIS was formed and has been successful during that time, there is merit to advance discussions for a transition to bilateral arrangements. The official could not be named because they were not authorized to speak on record about the issue.

According to public records, the Pentagon avoided responding to Sudani's remarks.

Iraq is an important partner for us. During a news event on Wednesday, Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, stated that they will maintain close consultations with them. "I will simply state that I am not aware of any formal request for the departure of DoD forces by the Iraqi government at this time."

A "higher review commission," which was announced in August at the end of the U.S.-Iraq Joint Security Cooperation Dialogue in Washington, D.C., is expected to convene at some point to consider the future of troop presence.

According to Jonathan Lord, who is in charge of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, those conversations will take their time, as Military Times reported on Friday.

"When an Iraqi politician wants to appear to be taking action on a challenging issue without actually doing anything? That's an old cliche that we Iraq analyst hands have." The idea of forming a committee has been proposed, Lord said.

Just one year ago, in another interview with the Wall Street Journal, Sudani actually justified American presence.

According to Lord, Sudani is facing pressure from his government's members associated with Iran who desire the United States out of the country. These same forces are also providing cash and equipment to the militias that continue targeting bases manned by U.S. troops with rockets and drones.

"When I see statements like that, when I hear rhetoric like that, it makes me think that Sudani isn't really keen on making bold policy moves, but rather trying to give the impression that they are concerned and are taking bold policy moves without actually having to change anything, at least in the near future," Lord added.

Iraq isn't solely to blame for the lack of action. Even though Operation Inherent Resolve started in late 2014, the final major stronghold of the ISIS caliphate, Mosul, was liberated in 2017. Reducing the mission's intensity has been a slow and steady process ever since.

By the year's end in 2021, the combat forces that had been supporting Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS had withdrawn. The mission's focus has shifted from laying down soldiers in Iraq to conducting occasional raids or strikes against ISIS leadership in Syria since then.

According to Lord, "Sudani, in fact, does have a political point here." He argues that the relationship between the U.S. and Iraqi militaries should have moved beyond just defeating ISIS and instead focused on creating an Iraqi military capable of standing on its own. However, very little effort or resources from the U.S. government have been allocated towards this goal.

With no Operation Inherent Resolve node in Iraq to give logistical support, the question becomes how to keep operations going in Syria in the event that the United States performs further pullout from Iraq.

In order to provide those forces in Syria, you must have a way to communicate with them on the ground, correct? In addition, the Turks would never permit it, Lord added.

From the next closest U.S. base, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, there is no topographical approach to northeast Syria unless someone devises a "harebrained scheme to try to like, air lift support," he added.

Ultimately, a potential "bilateral agreement" in Iraq might reduce the U.S. troop commitment to a minimum required to sustain the anti-ISIS campaign in Syria, with the possibility of a small contingent dedicated to the continuous training of Iraqi forces.

Lord said that Prime Minister Sudani, like all prime ministers before him, is trying to strike a balance between building and benefiting from the U.S. relationship and all that comes with it, including the perceived security and capital investment that could unlock access to U.S. dollars, and navigating around a deeply entrenched political mafia with guns.

Edited by Newsbreak Contributor Denys Shybinskiy