Mixed messages on Iraq withdrawal

The political posturing about the status of American forces in Iraq continues. On Dec. 28, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared to the Wall Street Journal, “The last American soldier will leave” in 2011. He added: “This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed.” Two days ago, Vice President Joe Biden reiterated America’s commitment to pull up stakes by the end of the year.

And yet … yesterday’s Washington Post looks at the nature of America’s continued presence in Iraq:

Despite Iraqi leaders’ insistence that the United States meet its deadline of withdrawing all troops by the end of 2011, the contours of a large and lasting American presence here are starting to take shape.

Iraq’s newly reelected prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has insisted publicly that the United States must abide by its agreement to leave, prompting U.S. and NATO officials to begin planning other ways for 400 or more military personnel, as well as hundreds of support staff members, to remain in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Barbero, the outgoing commander of U.S. and NATO training programs in Iraq, said half that number could come from extending the current NATO mission. Maliki has formally asked NATO to begin planning for that possibility, Barbero said, and leaders of Iraqi security forces and NATO officials have expressed support for the idea.

The other half could stay under the auspices of the U.S. Embassy. The 2008 agreement that set this year’s deadline for the U.S. troop withdrawal allows the State Department to establish an Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq, which officials here say they expect to resemble similarly robust U.S. military offices at embassies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and elsewhere.

Other U.S. military infrastructure could also remain in Iraq. The State Department is negotiating with the Pentagon to have its security contractors assume control of a rocket-detection system that protects the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, military officials said.

Troop levels may draw down lower than many would have predicted, and faster than most rational analysts would have hoped for — but the United States will maintain an enduring presence and significant influence in Iraq, under whatever guise is deemed suitable. Maliki’s nationalist rhetoric to the contrary, someone has to supply, maintain and train his military on those M-16s, F-16s, and M1A1s.

The scale of the drawback, coupled with Maliki’s vigor in pushing the issue, raises legitimate concerns about maintaining Iraq’s political stability and progress. It also calls into question the tenability of his government openly working with America while trying to keep a broad coalition together. But Iraq’s preference for American military hardware as the country reconstitutes its armed forces speaks volumes, auguring long-term partnership and a check on Iranian influence.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.



  • blert says:

    In the beginning Iraq thought that Russian weapons, so well known to their men — and proven — were best.
    However, in combat, it was painfully discovered that using the exact same weapon as the unlawful combatants made tactics a nightmare: enemy gun bursts sounded exactly like friendly fire.
    The minute elite troops shifted over to M-16/M-4, etc. that hazard went away. Further, they discovered that the 5.56 round is simply devastating. ( USSR brought out the AK-74 for just that reason. )
    When we suggested that Bagdad would be much better off economizing on battle tanks — they said:” No way!”
    They’d seen the tactical advantage of the better machines — and wanted brand new M1A1/M1A2s to boot.
    Likewise, the USAF had established such a reputation that only F-16s would do. It will take awhile for these to get to IOC since pilots aren’t made in a day.
    A single tank division ( 9th ) with American equipment is going to be more than Syria or Iran can handle, yet not enough to permit aggressive campaigns.
    However, Maliki’s bombast makes clear that our super bases are going to be lost by us. A systemic deconstruction of these facilities is probably at hand. Prior experience has shown that our bases are trashed by the locals within hours of our departure. They never survive the transfer. We might as well do the job right, ourselves.

  • Render says:

    Keep in mind that export versions of the M-1 Abrams do not have the DU armor inserts or the DU armor-piercing ammo.
    Also keep in mind that Iran’s sole “elite” armored division, the 92nd, is based at Ahvaz, southwest Iran. About 75 miles and one major bridge away from Basra.
    The Iraqi 9th Mech division, even when fully equipped and operational, is still in the wrong place to deal with an Iranian armored invasion. It’s in Baghdad, almost 300 miles away from Basra.


Islamic state



Al shabaab

Boko Haram