Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Washington Institute for Studies: Leaving Iraq may be Washington's wisest choice

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 268220
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    Washington Institute for Studies: Leaving Iraq may be Washington's wisest choice Empty Washington Institute for Studies: Leaving Iraq may be Washington's wisest choice

    Post by Rocky Wed 28 Feb 2024, 4:51 am

    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]Washington Institute for Studies: Leaving Iraq may be Washington's wisest choice[/size]

    [size=45]Translated by / Hamed Ahmed[/size]
    [size=45]A report by the Washington Institute for Studies, written by David Schenker, former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, dealt with the consequences of the tensions resulting from the American air strikes in Iraq and the government’s demand for the departure of foreign forces, stressing that any continuity of a large presence of American forces has become unjustified, noting that Even if forces withdraw to the Kurdistan region, Washington's security relationship with Baghdad will continue, while maintaining a stable, sovereign Iraq remains its priority.[/size]
    [size=45]Fellow writer at the Washington Institute for Studies, writer Schenker, stated in his report that while some parties in Washington criticized the slowness and delay in launching air strikes against armed factions that targeted American forces in Iraq and Syria, it was an important departure from the state of restraint that the Biden administration had exercised over a long period regarding attacks. Its forces received many losses at the hands of Iranian agents in Iraq, but at the same time they generated important political reactions in Baghdad that had unknown consequences on the future presence of American forces in Iraq. The Iraqi government denounced and denounced the attacks, and a statement from the office of the Prime Minister, Muhammad Shia al-Sudani, described the American air attacks as an act of aggression that affects the sovereignty of Iraq and declared official mourning for three days for the victims who fell among members of the Mobilization Forces. At the same time, the Iraqi government published a statement on the X website, formerly Twitter, accusing the American and coalition forces of endangering the security and stability of Iraq. While the spokesman for the Iraqi Armed Forces, Major General Yahya Rasool, stated in a statement that the American actions that endanger the security of civilians will force the Iraqi government to end the coalition mission that threatens to plunge Iraq into a spiral of conflict. These statements came in harmony with the positions of political blocs within the Coordination Framework Alliance that requested From the government to put an end to the presence of coalition forces in the country.[/size]
    [size=45]The writer and former American official, Schenker, points out that the demands to end the American presence in Iraq are nothing new, noting that since the administration of former President Donald Trump adopted a hard-line stance against Iran in 2018 and the subsequent defeat of ISIS in 2019, armed factions have It was targeting American soldiers in Iraq in the hope of forcing them to leave. Then, the following year, the number of forces was reduced to 2,500 and its mission was reclassified as training and advising purposes, not combat forces. However, the factions continued to threaten the forces after that, and the government demonstrated its inability to prevent and deter these attacks.[/size]
    [size=45]Last month, Al-Sudani announced that his government would soon hold negotiations with Washington to end the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. The matter remained unclear as to whether Al-Sudani himself wanted to remove the forces, or as one of the advisors told Reuters, that his statement was merely intended to please and alleviate the anger of the parties. politics within his government. Schenker says that just last year, Al-Sudani expressed his concern about the possibility of terrorism leaking into the country across the border with Syria, where ISIS is still active there. He stated in an interview published by the Wall Street Journal, “We need coalition forces.” But without a doubt, the coincidence of Israel's war on Gaza with the recent American air strikes on Iraqi soil had a political impact on the Sudanese in supporting the continued presence of the coalition.[/size]
    [size=45]In February, the Iraqi parliament scheduled a session to vote on the issue of the continued presence of American forces, but a full quorum of representatives was not achieved to hold a session. Baghdad may eventually decide that it is time for American and coalition forces to leave. The writer points out that Iraq can make this decision and can control the continuing threat of ISIS on its own. However, even if the Sudanese government does not want to remove the coalition forces, the presence of a large number of American forces is clearly unjustified.[/size]
    [size=45]The writer states in his report that twenty years after the invasion of Iraq, the time has come for the Biden administration to begin studying the best ways to reduce the presence of American forces in Iraq. He said that the United States is not investing its presence in Iraq in pushing the expansion of Iranian influence in Baghdad or obstructing it. Tehran’s line of communication with its agents from armed factions in Lebanon. While the presence of American forces in the Kurdistan region serves as an important logistical support node for the forces fighting ISIS in Syria, this presence may no longer be necessary if Washington withdraws its small presence of forces in Syria. Washington may be able to leave behind a small presence of forces in the Kurdistan region to support the counter-terrorism mission. Outside the Kurdistan region, there is no benefit from a continued American military presence in Iraq. But to be frank, any reckless and chaotic withdrawal from Iraq, as happened in Afghanistan, will be harmful to the credibility of the United States and may even expose the American embassy in Baghdad to attack.[/size]
    [size=45]The writer points out that the mission of the international coalition to fight ISIS has largely come to an end, and that an agreed-upon light military presence may help mitigate this threat while at the same time bilateral military relations, which also include training, continue.[/size]
    [size=45]The majority of American forces can remain in the Kurdistan region, as the United States welcomes Bahaa there. While a stable, sovereign Iraq remains a priority for the United States, Washington will rely on other means, especially economic ones, to maintain its interests in Iraq, as reducing or leaving Washington’s military presence does not mean the end of American military communication with Iraq or reducing its presence in the region or submitting to pressure. Iranian.[/size]
    [size=45]• About the Washington Institute for Studies[/size]
    [size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

      Current date/time is Wed 17 Apr 2024, 4:11 am