JUST LEAVE IRAQ
United
States military bases in the Middle East.
in
“American Security Project” at https://www.americansecurityproject.org/national-security-strategy/u-s-bases-in-the-middle-east/
The United States has been militarily present in Iraq for the better
part of this century: 14 years out of 20 (2003-2011 and 2014-2020). This
extended presence included the involvement in a war, in a counter-insurgency,
in another war and presently in another counter-insurgency/war of attrition, at
a staggering cost of 2 trillion Dollars and the loss of 4487 military
personnel.
The initial intentions of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, implementing
a democracy in Iraq and unveiling weapons of arms of mass destruction (which
were nowhere to be found), gradually unravelled under the mismanagement of the
occupation, the insurgency of Iraqi Iranian proxies, the fight of the Iraqi
branch of Al Qaeda and the increasing sectarianism, eventually mitigated by the
2007 Surge approved by President George W. Bush and led by the General David
Petraeus.
Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq in 2011 was the equivalent
to handing Iraq to Iran in a wrapped paper. The void left in the wake of the
American withdrawal was quickly filled by Tehran, either directly through the
Islamic Republican Guard (IRGC) Quds Force, or indirectly through the plethora
of Iraqi militias loyal to Iran (Badr Organisation, Ketaib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl
Al-Haq, among others). Concurrently, has Iran also increased her influence over
the powers that be, including the Iraqi government led by Nouri Al Maliki.
Speaking of whom, Al Maliki’s power grew with Tehran’s backing and with it came
an increasing sectarianism and persecution of the Sunni citizens that paved the
way for the following Islamic State onslaught.
Fast forward to 2014, the United States is drawn back to Iraq because of
the establishment of the Caliphate by the Islamic State (IS) in large swaths of
Iraq and Syria. The United States’ intervention, plus her allies and the
support given to the collapsing Iraqi army, were instrumental in the defeat of
the Islamic State.
The USA remained in Syria and in Iraq, under the pretext of continuing
to fight the remains of the IS and, in the case of Iraq, also to provide
training to her security forces. In Iraq there are an estimated 5200 American
troops spread by 5 bases, down from the 9 they had at the beginning of this
year. The reason to deliver some bases to the Iraqi military is the need to
consolidate, but the increase in rocket attacks on American bases and the need
to upgrade the bases’ defence capabilities obviously have played a role in the
decision.
Given the long American history in Iraq, its financial cost, its human
toll and the scant political and geopolitical gains, it is high time to
consider if the United States should persist in her Iraqi quest, or should she
just call it a day, fold the bases, the equipment and make the troops go home?
The
mainstream opinion is that the USA should stick to Iraq.
Actually, it argues that the USA should upgrade her involvement in Iraq,
helping the country to attain the capability to fend off threats from
neighbours like Iran or Turkey, to prop up Iraq’s economy, to help establishing
a standard of good governance and to finish off the vicious circles of endless
corruption and bloody sectarianism. On top of these, the USA should also
accomplish the feat of brushing aside 15 years of Iranian public and covert
influence over Baghdad’s political apparatus, plus putting an end to Iran’s
control over countless powerful proxy militias, not to mention her direct
military and security involvement in Iraq.
My personal conviction is that the United States is over and done in
Iraq and she is actually overstaying there. There are at least seven reasons to
substantiate it.
1-
The past 15 years abundantly proved that
the United States is not able to quash Iran’s influence and ascendant over
Iraq. The US has extended a decisive contribution to root out the Islamic
State threat and power and yet, after its demise, Iran went back to show her
prominence as influencer-in-chief in Baghdad. The American bases in Iraq have
been frequently attacked by Iran’s proxy militias. Regardless, the Iraqi
parliament approved a non-binding resolution to expel all American troops in
Iraq. This, by itself, speaks volumes as to who really calls the shots from
behind the scenes.
2-
The degree of suggested American involvement in Iraq would entail
another huge investment, on the military-security level, on the financial and
infra-structure level, on the political and diplomatic level. And all for what?
Been there, done that, as they say. The odds that this plan would pan out are
diminutive, given the well-established and time-tested Iranian pervasive
influence in Baghdad.
3-
The American citizenry is increasingly fed up of the excessive US
military involvement in the Middle East, of the human toll endured and of the financial
burden, as well. As time goes by and the
results do not match the investments, the animosity towards the endeavour in
Iraq will only grow.
4-
Unlike the mainstream conviction, I do not buy into the idea that having a
close relationship with Iraq is of crucial national interest to the United
States. Besides the unlikelihood of Iraq switching sides, the fact is that the
USA would not gain a significant new leverage in the Middle East if she could
co-opt Iraq. Although keeping Iraq under Iran’s wing will enable the latter an
extended influence in the region, thus preserving the Shiite Arch Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, there is no reason to believe
that it would translate into an overarching and threatening clout across the
Middle East.
Iran’s Shiite Arch stretching from the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf
to the Mediterranean, crossing Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
5- Actually,
in this Shiite Arch scenario, Iran will be bracing with severe challenges
in the mid-term if not before. Iran would find herself struggling to manage and
control a group of countries who are themselves ensnared in multiple problems
of epic proportions. Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are all mired in sectarian
conflicts, in terrorist and militia warfare, subject to multiple foreign
meddling (Turkey, Russia, USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab
Emirates), undergoing severe economic crises and coping with widespread
infrastructure destruction due to warfare, in the case of Syria and Iraq. If
one thinks of the strained conditions of the Iranian economy due to foreign
adventurism, sanctions, bad management and corruption, it is not difficult to
figure that Iran would be utterly incapable of rescuing her allies and proxies.
6-
What about an eventual Islamic State resurgence or any other insurgency
by existing or new terrorist organisations, be them Sunni or Shiite? Well, on
the one hand, it is unlikely that the IS would be able to return to the level
of power and impetus it displayed in 2014/15 and the same applies to any other
terrorist or insurgent group. On the other hand, if Iraq faces renewed threats from any such organisation, guess who
would have to carry the burden of rescuing the Iraqi government? Yes, that will
be Iran.
7-
Last but not least, the United States faces other challenges that are much more
relevant to her national interest and which request much more attention and
commitment. Namely, the rising military power and geopolitical ambitions of the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). Having 70.000
troops allocated to the Middle East plus the large amount of sea, air and land
equipment deployed is a bit of a waste when there is an insufficient military
presence in the West Pacific. The USA should not and will not withdraw from the
Middle East, but she should have a lighter footprint and terminate the useless
and vulnerable land deployments, such as those in Iraq and Syria.
It is quite surprising to see that there is still a
cohort of analysts and experts who keep pressing Washington to engage in
never-ending nation-building endeavours in spite of the successive failures in
previous attempts. It is also bewildering that these same people seem to think
that the United States should have a very close relationship with any country,
even if they are of little or none geopolitical relevance and/or if the large
required investment and the expectable small return clearly do not pay off the costs
and risks involved.
No suggestion is being made fore the US to leave the
Middle East and bases like the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and the Naval Support
Activity in Bahrain, among others, are absolutely vital for American power
projection and its presence in the region and the adjacent seas.
However, if the United States aims to retain her role
as the most important world power, she
has to drop world micromanagement and to focus on the real game changing
challenges which, at present, mostly involve the Asia-Pacific region in general
and the PRC in particular.
China’s outrageous maritime claims.
