Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

U.S. Army Soldiers in Rashidiyah, Iraq, Oct. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Russell Bassett)

U.S. Army Soldiers in Rashidiyah, Iraq, Oct. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Russell Bassett)

The U.S. Military Should Take the Iraqi Parliament’s Advice and Leave

The on-going presence of American troops in the region does not enhance U.S. or regional security; it makes Americans more vulnerable to attack and further mired in endless wars in the region.

Following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, war with Iran appears more likely than ever. Whether the conflict remains contained to proxies or escalates into full-on confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces, Americans are likely to die as a result of Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.

The best way to reduce the risk of war is to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Those currently stationed in Iraq are most vulnerable to attack from Iran and Iran-allied groups. Soleimani’s assassination significantly elevated the risk to Americans in Iraq, (as acknowledged by the Trump administration when it instructed Americans to leave).

The crisis Trump created could also provide an opportunity. Trump and American policymakers can now act in the direct interests of the United States while also improving relations with Iraq, a key regional partner.

The Iraqi parliament passed a non-binding resolution on Sunday to cancel its military aid request to coalition forces, effectively reversing its 2014 invitation for U.S. troops to deploy to Iraq to fight and contain ISIS. Arguably, once ISIS had been deprived of all strategic territory as of December 2017, the U.S. should have pulled out, their mission accomplished. 

The Iraqi parliament vote provides cover for the U.S. military to gracefully exit Iraq now. Removing U.S. troops affirms the authority of Iraq’s parliament, while simultaneously reducing the threat to American lives. Moreover, withdrawing from Iraq reduces the likelihood of further escalation with Iran, while improving the U.S.-Iraq relationship, which had frayed the longer the U.S. stayed beyond its stated mission.

If U.S. troops in Iraq are attacked by Iran, the Trump administration will feel compelled to respond, and the U.S. will soon be fighting yet another war in the Middle East. Current circumstances are even more inclined towards war than the conditions that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was not precipitated by an attack on U.S. forces.

The current U.S.-Iran relationship exhibits alarming parallels to U.S. relations with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. The U.S. had imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq, and was concerned about Iraq acquiring or possessing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s leadership was seen as cruel, dictatorial, and illegitimate, which allowed Bush administration officials to claim the U.S. would be welcomed as “liberators.”

Also similar to Iraq, the U.S. could probably defeat Iran in a conventional war. Yet the U.S. would face massive opposition and likely armed insurgency if it invades Iran, just like it did in Iraq. 

Like with Iran now, the U.S. had no official diplomatic relations with Iraq between 1990 and 2003. U.S. officials had very little information about Iraqi society and in lieu of diplomatic expertise, the Bush team relied on a group of Iraqi exiles who were eager for the U.S. to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government. Yet these individuals had themselves been out of Iraq since the 1980s, had no support base within the country, and had no more accurate information about circumstances in Iraq than U.S. officials.

The exact same dynamics—the lack of understanding of state and society, of regime dynamics, of potential post-conflict evolution, and reliance on exiles with no public support inside the country—are present in Iran. 

Moreover, war with and possible invasion of Iran would present greater difficulties than Iraq. Iran has a larger population and bigger GDP, despite sanctions. The Iranian government has greater legitimacy than Saddam Hussein’s regime. Anti-government protestors have vanished in the wake of Soleimani’s assassination, replaced by massive expressions of national unity and calls for retaliation against the U.S. 

As in Iraq, the neoconservative agenda calls for regime change in Iran. Yet the decision to dismantle the Baathist regime and disband the Iraqi military led to the rise of ISIS. Although these choices are widely seen as some of the worst foreign policy blunders in recent American history, the U.S. is on the brink of implementing the same approach. To “make Iran safe for democracy,” the entirety of the Iranian government and military would have to be demolished, similar to the policies implemented in Iraq. These actions, while not only requiring a huge coercive force and vast resources, would likely provoke even stronger resistance from Iranian society. Any military action would automatically bolster nationalism, already a potent force in Iran.

Conventional wisdom has it that Trump would rather avoid an all-out war with Iran and prefer instead to focus on re-election. He knows that his base likes when he puts “America First” by beating up on Iran on Twitter, but that is different from getting into what would be a messy, volatile, long-term conflict—and he knows it. However, Trump also knows that if U.S. soldiers were attacked by Iran—and a media narrative absolves Trump of responsibility for starting this whole mess—his base would rally around him. No war-time president has ever lost re-election. Although Trump has thus far managed to avoid provoking all-out war, the impeachment may have spurred him to adopt more extreme means of distraction.

The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq makes war with Iran significantly more likely. It was the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that helped lead to the circumstances in which a U.S. military contractor was killed, provoking retaliatory airstrikes, and setting off a cascade of events resulting in the storming of the U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad, which then apparently prompted the decision to target Soleimani. 

There is a brief window within which American service members can be made more secure by withdrawing them from Iraq. This must occur before Iran or its allies attack them, and the U.S. is drawn into another war in the Middle East, one that is even more costly and destructive than the war in Iraq.

The on-going presence of American troops in the region does not enhance U.S. or regional security; it makes Americans more vulnerable to attack and further mired in endless wars in the region. That was true before the assassination of Soleimani, it is even more true today. It’s time to bring the troops home to safety.

© 2019 Responsible Statecraft

Annelle Sheline

Annelle Sheline

Annelle Sheline is a Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute. Her research focuses on religious authority in the Middle East, specifically the intersection of religious and national identities in the Arab monarchies. She analyzes the implications of combating violent extremism and encouraging religious tolerance in Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In addition to academic writing, her public commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, The Global Post and Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs. 

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

'He Isn’t Negotiating, He Is Killing the Bill': Ilhan Omar Slams Joe Manchin

"Thanks to the butchering of Manchin, Sinema, and the greed of their corporate lobbyists," said one critic, the Democrat's Build Back Better plan has been slashed down to just $1.9 trillion in spending.

Jon Queally ·

'Stop Line 5': Valve Turner Forces Shutdown of Enbridge Oil Pipeline in Michigan

"We are here to protect the water, land, and air that support all life, including our own. Line 5 poses an immediate threat to our lives and these actions are taken out of necessity and in self-defense."

Jessica Corbett ·

'Delay Is the New Denial': Study Confirms 99.9% of Scientists Agree on Climate

"It's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change."

Brett Wilkins ·

Exposed: How Pfizer Exploits Secretive Vaccine Contracts to Strong-Arm Governments

"Pfizer has used its monopoly on a lifesaving vaccine to extract concessions from desperate governments," said the report's author, urging action from the Biden administration.

Jessica Corbett ·

'A Toxic Presence in the Party': Ocasio-Cortez Joins Calls for Jay Jacobs to Resign

"India Walton is the Democratic nominee for mayor of Buffalo. No amount of racist misogyny from the old boys' club is going to change that."

Brett Wilkins ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo