WITHDRAWAL OF US TROOPS MAY LEAVE IRAQ VULNERABLE TO SECURITY THREATS
▶ Baghdad’s forces may not be equipped to protect state, experts say, with talks on American exit set to begin
The withdrawal of US forces from Iraq could leave Baghdad unequipped to deal with deep-rooted security issues, from Iranbacked militias to lingering ISIS terror cells.
Talks over the withdrawal of US forces are set to begin after both countries announced on Thursday that the US-Iraq Higher Military Commission would meet “in the coming days” to discuss the “transition to an enduring bilateral security partnership between Iraq and the United States.”
Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani has repeatedly called for a managed exit of US troops from Iraq as violence escalates between American forces and Iran-linked militias in the Popular Mobilisation Forces, which is funded by the Iraqi government.
Mr Al Sudani told the World Economic Forum in Davos last week that Iraq must “reach an understanding on a timeline for concluding the mission of the international advisers” now that ISIS is no longer a threat. He said US air strikes on PMF sites were destabilising Iraq.
Militia attacks on US forces have risen to unprecedented levels this month, including a missile strike last weekend that injured several soldiers.
The US has retaliated with air strikes on militia targets, continuing a cycle of violence that has raged since the Israel-Gaza war began last October.
“They’re upset about our strikes, but they attacked coalition forces first,” said David Witty, an expert on security co-operation and former US special forces officer.
This is not the first time Baghdad has asked US troops to depart. In 2009, Nouri Al Maliki, prime minister at the time, issued a three-year deadline for withdrawal.
The US complied, and by 2011 their forces had left the country. But they were invited back in 2014, complemented by a contingent from Nato, to fight ISIS, which in June that year had captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city.
Western air support, mostly co-ordinated with Iraq’s Counter Terrorism Service, was vital in the campaign to recover territory from ISIS, and the CTS developed a close relationship with US special forces advisers.
Acting separately from the US-led coalition, Iran-backed militias also fought ISIS.
But since the terror group’s defeat in 2017, coalition forces have clashed with the militias.
Tensions rose in January 2020 when the US killed the de facto leader of the PMF, Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, and the architect of Iran’s regional network, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general Qassem Suleimani, in an air strike on Baghdad.
After the strike, then prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi sided with Iraqi MPs and voted to remove American forces.
But Mr Mahdi resigned amid protests and was succeeded by Mustafa Al Kadhimi, who allowed the coalition to remain.
However, the balance of power has since shifted. Mr Al Sudani is seen as much closer to Tehran, which has strengthened calls by Iran-backed groups for the US to leave.
But experts warn history could repeat itself if US troops withdraw again.
After the withdrawal in 2011, the Iraqi military lost effectiveness due to an increase in corruption, with commanders selling fuel, ammunition and even food for personal gain, as well as falsifying payrolls.
Iraq struggled to co-ordinate and resupply its troops, resulting in disaster against ISIS.
Recent reports by a US inspector general warn that many of these problems remain, especially with logistics, stoking fears that ISIS or similar groups could experience a resurgence if the US pulls out.
Mr Witty, who worked closely with the CTS during the fight against ISIS, warned that the coalition’s training of Iraqi forces could be insufficient for them to protect the state.
“There’s no contact with the Iraqi security forces other than through the Ministry of Defence, and that is pretty discouraging,” he said, describing what the coalition calls an “operational level” effort, focused on overseeing planning, rather than helping infantry at the sharp end of fighting.
Mr Witty said the US should continue training Iraqi troops based on the model of the CTS, under which small US and Iraqi units worked together.
“The lower level is better, you know, and a good example is the CTS, that we’re down all the way to the company level. Generally, they did combined operations. There was a platoon-sized element of Iraqis and maybe a squad-sized element of Americans going out on missions. They learn by example.”
Mr Witty voiced concerns that without constant training, old problems could soon re-emerge, jeopardising Baghdad’s ability to stand up to ISIS, or to PMF groups like Harakat Hezbollah Al Nujaba, which has said it could overthrow the Iraqi government if asked by Iran.
There is a risk Iraq’s military culture “reverts back to its original self”, he said. “We saw this happen after 2011. The standards go down, things deteriorate. And that’s what I’m particularly worried about.” Experts doubt that a troop withdrawal would cause the conflict between the US and Iran in Iraq to fade away.
“In 2011, when the US last left, [ISIS] was getting much stronger in Syria and beginning to recover strength in Iraq,” said Michael Knights, an Iraq expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank.
“This is not the case now. [ISIS] is not the real threat now. The main risk to Iraqi security is state capture and asset-stripping by Iran-backed militias.”
He said the PMF’s rise has not only reduced funding for the CTS, but also increased the risk of fighting between the PMF and US.
“Everything is happening at the ministerial level for your regular security forces, and the Iraqi central government has been infiltrated by the PMF. They’re embedded in all the ministries now. Not just actual ministers, but assistant ministers and deputy ministers, they’re all guys from the various militias, chosen by the [political coalition] Co-ordination Framework,” Mr Knights said.
In the current Iraqi government budget, funding for the CTS is down 14 per cent, while the PMF budget has doubled.
“We needed to be in Iraq to fight [ISIS] because we had an Iraqi partner, but now there is no partner inside Iraq to fight the main threat – because the militias have taken over the security sector,” he said.
If Iraq becomes a base of operations for the PMF’s regional wars, its conflict with the US may continue, with US forces launching strikes from outside the country.
“The US may be better able to strike, sanction and otherwise damage those militias if it is outside Iraq,” said Mr Knights.
“Iraq may or may not experience fewer air strikes if the coalition is collapsed, because a US president may be less restrained if our forces, and perhaps our embassy, are forced to leave.
“Economic stability would definitely worsen in Iraq if the US has no incentive to show restraint regarding the sheltering of Iraqi monies from international lawsuits, and if the US rations Iraq’s supply of dollars because terrorist actors are seen to have taken over the country and Finance Ministry.”