How did the invasion of Iraq change the American military doctrine?

POSTED ON[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] BY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=52]How did the invasion of Iraq change the American military doctrine?[/size]

[size=45]The US State Department to Asharq Al-Awsat: Our commitment to the region is permanent... and the Central Command: We
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
are not fighting on behalf of Iraq … - I mean Ukraine. A surprising, albeit unintended, condemnation came from former US President George W. Bush a few months ago. A fleeting slip of the tongue, but it reflects the impact of a 20-year-old war whose consequences are still felt today, in Iraq, the region and the world.

[/size]
[size=45]Sifting through the failure of the invasion to achieve its stated objectives; From “destroying weapons of mass destruction” that have not been found, and “liberating the people of Iraq” who have suffered for two decades from the evils of terrorism and sectarian violence, the priorities of the United States raise questions about the feasibility of continuing its military presence in the Middle East region.[/size]
[size=45]And while the military interventions in the region enjoyed varying support within the US under the umbrella of the war on terror, today they have become the subject of doubts. Rather, her opposition has become fuel for both Republican and Democratic election campaigns.[/size]
[size=45]From Barack Obama, to Donald Trump, to Joe Biden, American presidents did not hesitate to acknowledge the “strategic mistake” that the United States committed by invading Iraq.[/size]
[size=45]How did this “mistake” affect the US military doctrine in the region since the withdrawal of the last forces from Iraq in 2011? Will the United States gradually withdraw from the region in the midst of directing its priorities to Asia, where the influence of the Chinese giant is escalating?[/size]
[size=45]continuous military presence[/size]
[size=45]The US military deployment in Iraq since 2003 has ranged from 165,000 US troops at the height of the invasion to nearly 2,500 today.[/size]
[size=45]In parallel with the fluctuation in the numbers of American forces, the American discourse has changed radically over the past two decades. After the Bush military doctrine was based on pre-emptive strikes to protect US national security from external threats, Washington confirms today that the presence of its forces depends on the approval of the local authorities and that their deployment is purely advisory, not combative.[/size]
[size=45]Captain Abby Hammock, a spokeswoman for the US Central Command, says that Operation Inherent Resolve, in which US forces are participating in a coalition of 80 countries, are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and have a clear mandate under international law to defeat ISIS.[/size]
[size=45]In her response to whether the central leadership succeeded in restoring Iraq's confidence 20 years after it led the invasion, Hammock stressed to Asharq Al-Awsat the importance of partnership and cooperation. "In full consultation with the Government of Iraq, whose sovereignty is of paramount importance, the Joint Task Force is working with local, regional and international actors to help Iraq achieve stability in conflict-affected areas," she said.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
An American soldier searches an Iraqi civilian southeast of Fallujah on November 16, 2005 (AFP)[/size]
[size=45]Hammock stressed that one of the most important pillars of this coalition's approach in Iraq is that it does not fight on behalf of Iraq, but rather that its continuous presence in a non-combat role provides support, resources, advice, and assistance. With the aim of enabling the Iraqi security forces to lead the battle against ISIS. "This approach has proven successful, and we are confident that it will remain effective," she stressed.[/size]
[size=45]In addition to security cooperation, Washington affirms its continued commitment to Iraq on the political and economic levels. With the aim of "strengthening stability, security and sovereignty." A spokesman for the US State Department told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington's interest is currently focused on expanding the strategic framework agreement between the United States and Iraq, beyond security, to a "360-degree relationship" that achieves results for the Iraqi people. And he continued, “Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani and the United States are on the same page in many areas. We agree on the need to ensure the sustainable defeat of ISIS, consolidate energy independence in Iraq, support private sector growth, and improve public services. He also considered expanding educational and cultural programs, combating corruption, reining in armed groups outside government control, and combating the climate crisis in Iraq as "top priorities."[/size]
[size=45]internal accounts[/size]
[size=45]The American invasion of Iraq and its consequences turned into a controversial issue that polarized American public opinion and changed the face of American foreign policy in the Middle East. While the American voter does not usually pay much attention to foreign issues, Washington's military doctrine in the Middle East has become an electoral issue par excellence, especially in the presidential election campaigns in 2012, 2016 and 2020.[/size]
[size=45]In the latest poll of Americans and veterans, the Pew Center found that 62 percent of Americans believe that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. According to the US Department of Defense, 4,500 American soldiers were killed in the invasion, and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, according to estimates by the Iraq War Victims Organization. The war cost the US Treasury $801.9 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.[/size]
[size=45]With the growing public anger at the “series of failure” in the Middle East, from Iraq to Afghanistan, through Syria and Libya, successive democratic and republican administrations sought ways to withdraw militarily from the region without sacrificing their economic and political interests.[/size]
[size=45]Since Barack Obama's first administration until the current administration, Washington has confirmed its desire to strengthen its presence in East Asia, while some considered it an indication of its gradual withdrawal from the Middle East.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
An Iraqi looks at the smoke rising from the bombing of a pipeline south of Basra in March 2004 (EPA)[/size]
[size=45]Despite the widespread popular support for getting out of the "quagmire" in the Middle East, Obama's decision to withdraw the last US forces from Iraq in 2011 sparked Republican disapproval for years that followed, and military reservations.[/size]
[size=45]In an article in "Foreign Policy" magazine, James Troup, a senior fellow at the Center for International Cooperation in New York, summed up the opinions supporting the proposition that US forces remain, albeit in limited numbers, in Iraq. With the aim of “protecting the interests” of the United States by countering the growing influence of terrorist organizations. Troup linked the position of the Democratic administration at the end of the war that Bush started with the desire of the American people to focus on the inside, referring to the belief of many at the time that the American presence "exacerbates the situation." Troup considered that Obama adopted this position in both Iraq and Syria, concluding that "the absence of the United States has become, in fact, more dangerous than its presence" in the region.[/size]
[size=45]Troup recalled the positions of Republican politicians at the time, led by Mike Pence, who was governor of Indiana. Pence held the Obama administration responsible for empowering ISIS in Iraq. He also criticized Hillary Clinton's failure to renegotiate the framework agreement for the work of US forces in Iraq, "which would have allowed some combat forces to remain in Iraq and secure the gains made by American soldiers."[/size]
[size=45]But Pence adopted a different position on Afghanistan, apparently yielding to the will of his party's base. Years later, he became one of the most prominent faces of Donald Trump's Republican administration, which adopted the slogans of "returning American forces to the country" and ending "eternal wars", in the most prominent manifestation of the United States' desire for military withdrawal from the Middle East. Despite fierce resistance from his senior military advisers, Trump reached an agreement to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by the beginning of May 2021, after months of painstaking negotiations with the Taliban. A commitment carried out by his successor in the White House, in what was described as the worst military withdrawal in the history of the United States.[/size]
[size=45]However, the Trump administration did not lead an explicit policy of withdrawal from the Middle East. Rather, the Republican president devoted his first foreign visit to attending 3 Saudi-American, Gulf-American, and Islamic-American summits that Riyadh hosted in 2017, in a clear indication of the continued American commitment to the region.[/size]
[size=45]In addition, his agreement to reduce the number of American forces in Iraq, which his predecessor had deployed in the framework of efforts to combat “ISIS”, came after an air strike was launched in the vicinity of the airport of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, which killed the commander of the “Quds Force” in the Iranian “Revolutionary Guard” Qassem Soleimani and his deputy. The head of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in the first week of 2020.[/size]
[size=45]Months after the blow that weakened Iranian influence in the Middle East, Trump's successor in the White House announced the transfer of the remaining US forces in Iraq to an advisory role, and reduced the number of US forces from 5,200 in 2020 to 2,500 in January 2021.[/size]
[size=45]The Biden Doctrine[/size]
[size=45]In contrast to the “withdrawal approach” that some politicians have advocated for years, and which some believe has opened the way for the growth of Russian and Chinese influence in the region, Washington continues to deploy nearly 30,000 soldiers in its bases in the region, and rejects the idea of ​​withdrawing from the Middle East, stressing that its commitment to the region "permanent".[/size]
[size=45]A spokesman for the US State Department told Asharq Al-Awsat that President Joe Biden's visit to the region last year "confirmed our permanent commitment to the region and the importance of our strong relations." The president laid out an initial and comprehensive vision for America's role in the Middle East region, and it was integrated into our national security strategy. The spokesman believed that this commitment is based on "our deep diplomatic, economic and cultural engagement with the region."
In a speech he delivered a few weeks ago in Washington, Brett McGurk, coordinator for Middle East and Africa affairs at the National Security Council, said: The “Biden Doctrine” in the region is based on 5 axes and aims to enhance the security and stability of the region through diplomacy and deterrence.[/size]
[size=45]The first principle, according to McGurk, who was speaking at the Atlantic Council last February, is based on partnership. He said: The United States will support partnerships with countries that participate in the rules-based international order, and will enhance their ability to defend themselves against external threats.[/size]
[size=45]The second principle is deterrence. The US official stated that his country “will not allow freedom of navigation through the waterways in the Middle East to be endangered,” including the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, “nor will it tolerate the efforts of any country to control another country through military reinforcements, incursions, or threats.” .[/size]
[size=45]The third principle of the “Biden Doctrine” is based on diplomacy. "We will not only aim to deter threats to regional stability, but we will work to reduce tensions where we can, de-escalate and end conflicts where possible through diplomacy," says McGurk.[/size]
[size=45]The fourth axis in the current US strategy towards the Middle East depends on building and strengthening political, economic and security ties between US partners, while respecting the sovereignty of each country and its independent choices. As for the fifth principle, it relates to the promotion of human rights and the values ​​enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.[/size]
[size=45]McGurk emphasized the military aspect of deterrence, citing examples from the past two years. He said: Since the beginning of the Biden era, the United States has acted militarily against the threats of Iran and its proxies, explaining, “We have strengthened the deterrent capacity of our partners, and established new and innovative maritime networks. Sometimes, through close cooperation, we have detected and deterred imminent threats to the region that could have sparked wider conflict.[/size]
[size=45]The US official, who was Presidents Obama and Trump's envoys in the global coalition to combat ISIS, also cited the largest joint US-led military exercise in the eastern Mediterranean in January as evidence of Washington's commitment to the region's security. "We're doing this to look for conflict, but to create the conditions for deterrence and containment and allowing diplomacy to flourish," he said.[/size]
[size=45]fixed interests[/size]
[size=45]Between Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley's surprise visit to Syria and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's regional tour, the region witnessed this month an American move aimed at reassuring allies in the Middle East of its commitment to their security. In his visits to Jordan, Egypt, and Israel, Austin affirmed Washington's commitment to supporting the defenses of its allies in the Middle East and to increasing and strengthening strategic partnerships. The US Secretary of Defense stressed the concept of "integrated deterrence" stipulated in the national defense strategy, which is based on achieving and deepening multilateral security integration.[/size]
[size=45]William Wechsler, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and one of the most prominent advocates of US survival in the Middle East, believes that the current administration is on "the right path after a series of missteps."[/size]
[size=45]Wechler, who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counterterrorism until 2015, believes that US policy towards the Middle East has been unchanged for decades, and that the Iraq war was an "abnormal" event on this approach. Wechler says, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat: “If we look at the period between the fifties of the last century until today, we will find relative consistency in the American position towards the Middle East in terms of military presence, with the exception of stark contradictions,” such as the Iraq war and withdrawal from Afghanistan.[/size]
[size=45]Despite these contradictions, the former US official considers Washington's military doctrine in the Middle East to be largely stable, in line with US interests in the region. He says, “The previous few administrations all reviewed the US military position in the region, amid expectations that this would lead to a major withdrawal from the Middle East. However, these reviews end each time with almost no change.[/size]
[size=45]The reason, according to Wechsler, is that US interests in the Middle East have not changed, and that military strategy is essential to protect them. The American researcher summarizes these interests in four points: ensuring the security and freedom of energy extraction, securing means of transporting energy to global markets, preserving the stability of the region in its economic, political and security dimensions, and promoting the prosperity of the region. "These American interests have been in the Middle East since energy was found in this part of the world, and they still are," he says.[/size]
[size=45]Wechler seemed relatively optimistic about the United States' return to a "balanced approach" in the Middle East, recalling the change in the American position on East Asia in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. "It took the American public a little over a decade to stop judging their country's East Asian policy through the prism of Vietnam," he said.[/size]
[size=45]Waiting for the American voter to overcome the repercussions of the successive events since 2003, Wechler believes that "the United States should not take any decision that would make it impossible to return to a more typical approach towards the region." And he continues, "The question remains whether the leaders of the region will work to encourage the American withdrawal from the Middle East, by promoting rapprochement with Russia and China."[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]