The countdown begins for the US withdrawal from Iraq.. Will it affect the country's security?

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]The countdown begins for the US withdrawal from Iraq.. Will it affect the country's security?[/size]

[size=45]Although the Iraqi and American sides announced an agreement to schedule the withdrawal of American forces from the country within the next two years and in two stages, following several rounds of negotiations, doubts surround Washington’s credibility in implementing the agreement, as well as the government’s clarity in talking about this agreement.
On September 27, 2024, a joint statement by the two sides mentioned an agreement to set the end of September 2025 as the date for the end of the military mission of the international coalition to defeat ISIS in Iraq, indicating that “after that, there will be a transition to bilateral security relations in a way that supports the Iraqi forces and maintains pressure on ISIS, while noting that “the military mission of the coalition operating in Syria will continue from a platform determined by the Supreme Military Committee until September 2026.”
Regarding this, political analyst Ali Fadlallah said, “Baghdad and Washington reaching an agreement on scheduling the withdrawal of the international coalition’s military forces is considered a success for the current Iraqi government, because it was included in the announced government program,” adding, “But currently, it is not possible to determine the credibility of the US administration in implementing the withdrawal, given the doubts about that.”
Fadlallah, who is close to the factions, continued, “In principle, the agreement represents a diplomatic victory by convincing the US side to write a clear agreement with a time frame,” adding that “if the US side reneges, the military presence will be without governmental or legal cover and will be treated as occupying forces.”
Fadlallah explained that “the real withdrawal of US forces will achieve security stability for Iraq, as Iraqi forces will become more free to move towards any target or carry out military operations, especially with the Iraqi airspace being out of American control, because everyone knows that there is a clear restriction on Iraqi military units due to the presence of NATO and US forces.”
It is noteworthy that according to a statement by the Iraqi Minister of Defense, Thabet Al-Abbasi, in a televised interview, he said that “the military withdrawal will be in two stages,” indicating that “the understanding includes a first stage from September 2024 to September 2025, including Baghdad and the military bases of the advisors, followed by a withdrawal in the second stage from September 2025 to September 2026 from the Kurdistan Region.”
Following the outbreak of the war and the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, armed factions targeted bases in Iraq and Syria that housed American forces against the backdrop of Washington’s support for Israel in the war, and the United States responded repeatedly by launching airstrikes that targeted faction headquarters in both countries.
After a noticeable decline in faction attacks in recent months, missiles were launched last September targeting the Ain al-Assad base in western Iraq and the Victoria base at Baghdad International Airport.
“The government is not clear,”
says political thought professor Ayad Al-Anbar, “The American will is clearer in the agreement with Iraq, which is represented by the impossibility of leaving it or leaving the existing partnership with it, so it always uses the term strategic partnership, despite the Iraqi government’s talk from time to time about reaching an agreement on the withdrawal of coalition forces, and it is not clear in describing the relationship with the American side.”
Al-Anbar said, “The current government does not clearly state the relationship that will extend with the American side, especially economically and security-wise, and the visit that the Prime Minister and his accompanying delegation made to Washington included many agreements on various levels, which means that there is a relationship that will not end with the withdrawal of military forces, but its failure to talk about that is an explicit compliment and consideration for the desire of its partners in the Coordination Framework who participate in the government.” Al
-Anbar pointed out that “the government is working along two conflicting lines, the first is its conviction in the partnership through signing joint cooperation memoranda, and the second is that it does not want to announce its pursuit of that partnership, and this is a problem in the government’s position by talking about a military withdrawal only and it did not specify the extent of Washington’s commitment to it or the Iraqi government that will come in the future.”
"Closing the pretexts"
He considered that "ending the presence of the international coalition's military forces is not an American withdrawal because America is part of the international coalition, and therefore the withdrawal is not for American forces but for joint forces from different countries, and therefore the agreement reached is called closing the pretexts for those who make excuses against this government and want to bomb foreign interests that there is an effort towards negotiation by the current government," adding that "in truth everyone realizes that this issue on the ground is completely different, because ordinary people do not put this file among their priorities as much as political parties put it on their agendas and want to implement it."
Al-Anbar confirmed that "the government wants to announce the achievement of this agreement and describe it as an achievement in light of the lack of interest of citizens who want to sever the dollar's link to American hegemony amid the inability of the Iraqi government and the Central Bank to solve this file, which represents a crisis related to people's livelihood."
The United States has about 2,500 troops in Iraq, in addition to 900 in neighboring Syria, as part of the coalition formed in 2014 to fight ISIS after it overran vast areas in both countries. It includes forces from other countries, especially France and the United Kingdom, while Iraqi armed factions loyal to Iran are demanding the withdrawal of these forces.
Baghdad declared “victory” over ISIS in late 2017, which had controlled vast areas in Iraq and Syria three years earlier, but some of its cells are still active in several areas and launch attacks targeting security forces, especially in remote areas.
After the withdrawal
, security and military expert Safaa al-Aasam believes that “the agreement reached between Baghdad and Washington is clear and will lead to a complete military withdrawal of coalition forces within two years,” noting that “Iraq is capable of filling the military vacuum if foreign forces leave, eliminating ISIS elements, and confronting external threats if it is armed and equipped with intelligence.”
Al-Aasam said, “The development of Iraq’s military capabilities will not happen unless there is American seriousness in ending the presence of its forces on its territory and granting it the freedom to arm itself,” noting that “what will remain are forces of advisors, trainers, and supervisors of training Iraqi forces because the bilateral relationship will continue,” explaining that “the terms of the agreement between Baghdad and Washington began in mid-2014 after the organization entered areas of Iraq.”
He explained that “the negotiations had included a request from the American side to grant it an additional period, because the two-year period is not enough for all forces to leave, but the Iraqi negotiator rejected this request and insisted on completing the withdrawal within two years at most,” while stressing that “the agreement concluded now shows the seriousness of implementation according to the timetable that was set based on intensive meetings and negotiation rounds that the two countries underwent, which resulted in intentions for a strategic relationship in many files during the coming period.”
This comes at a time when the Iraqi authorities have confirmed on more than one occasion the readiness of the military forces and their high ability to confront security challenges at all levels, especially with the disappearance of the threat of the “ISIS” organization, which no longer poses the same threat that it did years ago.
The Federal Court responds to a request from Parliament
In addition, the Federal Supreme Court responded today, Tuesday, to Parliament’s request to clarify the constitutional procedure that must be taken by the House of Representatives in the event that the government is lax in ending the mission of foreign forces in Iraq.
According to an official letter issued by the court bearing the signature of its president, Judge Jassim Muhammad Abboud, this request was rejected for lack of jurisdiction “for lack of jurisdiction.”
Washington and Baghdad have reached an agreement on a plan for the withdrawal of US-led coalition forces from Iraq over a period of 12 months.
The United States and Iraq aim to establish a new consultative relationship that could keep some US forces in Iraq after the withdrawal.
An “official” announcement was scheduled to be issued weeks ago, but was postponed due to regional escalation following the events in Gaza and incidents such as the bombing of the “Ain al-Assad” base.
Meanwhile, the Federal Supreme Court issued a decision today, Tuesday, that included the interpretation of the phrase (fully sovereign) contained in Article (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005.[/size]
[size=45]The text of the decision stated that the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq guarantees the unity of Iraq, and that unity requires that Iraq have full sovereignty over all its lands, airspace, and territorial waters.
According to the decision, this also requires that all federal authorities, decentralized regional and governorate authorities, and local administrations be obligated to abide by the provisions of the Constitution to preserve the unity of Iraq and not to take any action that undermines its sovereignty.
The court’s decision stressed that “otherwise, any authority that violates this will have violated the Constitution and endangered Iraq’s sovereignty in accordance with Articles (1, 8, 50, 109, and 116) of the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005.”
This came in accordance with the decision issued by the court No. (89/Federal/2024), according to the statement issued by the Federal Court.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]