Always more resistant to open-ended foreign military presence than the nation’s executive branch, Iraq’s parliament has revealed a series of plans to start “reviewing” the US military presence. This is focused in particular on a timetable for the US pullout.
Iraq MP Ahmad al-Assadi said he expects the calls for a US withdrawal to at least double during the new parliament’s term, and that most are only prepared to accept the trainers and advisors described as filling a specific need.
This is to start with a review of the scale of the US presence, the needs of the Iraqi security forces, and the existing timetable. With ISIS effectively defeated in Iraq, most seem to lean toward needing few, if any, US troops at this point.
While the US appears to have no intention of leaving, it should be noted that the last US occupation of Iraq, started in 2003, also faced calls for a pullout that originated in the parliament, and while the US never fully left Iraq, parliament was able to force a dramatic drawdown.
Because of a long standing policy that our troops stationed abroad must have legal immunity there must be a Status of Forces Agreement with he government of Iraq. Such agreements always have an end date but also a clause which gives both parties the right to terminate the agreement.
Apparently the relatively small contingent of our ‘trainers’ are not covered. Nevertheless, there must be an understanding that they have immunity too.
Immunity is what the Sadrists hate. Although they are not a majority in parliament, they are the dominant political power of Iraq today.
We always hear what the government of Iraq or the parliament of Iraq wants. We are rarely told what the people of Iraq want. In 2011 when President Obama pulled out most of our armed forces only some 20% of the Iraqi people wanted us to stay. What is that percentage today? If it is as low as it was in 2011 then president Trump will face the same situation as Obama did in 2011 with the exception that Sadr is now in the saddle.
Because it will not be the president of Iraq but its parliament which will decide on the presence of foreign soldiers in Iraq negotiations with the president only are vain. If any US armed forces remain in Iraq it will be Iraq’s parliament and not President Trump which will determine how many US military will remain and what their allowed tasks will be.
At the center of the issues will be: is ISIS still a threat?
And also who profits from a stay?
Perhaps Iraqis are saying “tanks for the memories” (okay, I’m reaching) as seen here, here and here.
The US charade that Iraq is a US ally perseveres, but will be further challenged by the new Iraq government which is even more pro-Iran than it was before.
Yes, Operation Iraqi Freedom gave Iraqis the option to be free and democratic. Along with the harsh US treatment — killing, injuring, displacing, kidnapping, imprisoning, torturing, etc. — Iraqis have a ‘don’t let the door hit ya’ attitude, as they should.
So more power to the Iraqis, who now have a more democratic government than Americans have. Their parliament is actually involved in important matters of war and peace. Their parliament was involved on the US withdrawal agreement that Bush negotiated w/o any involvement from Congress. And now their parliament will further Iraq’s national security by dismissing the “trainers.”
Next comes Afghanistan. Different conditions, same result.