The dynamics of Iraq and Afghanistan are quite different, but they both have the same international interlocutor - the USA.
Many wonder if the US will have a different approach in Iraq.
To help understand the US policy rationale on Iraq, I changed a few names in the Biden speech on Afghanistan. I swapped the names of Afghanistan with Iraq, and Taliban with the militia, in addition to some minor changes to make it Iraqi relevant. The following are extracts of the speech:
*****
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Iraq…
I want to remind everyone how we got here and what America’s interests are in Iraq.
We went to Iraq almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and make sure al-Qaeda could not use Iraq as a base from which to attack us again.
We did that. We severely degraded al-Qaeda [and ISIS] in Iraq. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden [and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi], and we got him. That was a decade ago.
Our mission in Iraq was never supposed to have been nation-building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy.
Our only vital national interest in Iraq remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.
I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism - not counterinsurgency or nation building…
And that’s why, as president, I am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021 - not yesterday’s threats.
Today, the terrorist threat has metastasised well beyond Iraq… These threats warrant our attention and our resources.
I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw US forces.
That’s why we were still there. We were clear-eyed about the risks. We planned for every contingency.
So what’s happened? Iraq’s political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Iraqi military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.
If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending US military involvement in Iraq now was the right decision.
American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Iraqi military force… - incredibly well equipped - a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies.
We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force - something that the militia don’t have. The militia does not have an air force. We provided close air support.
We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.
There’s some very brave and capable Iraqi special forces units and soldiers, but if Iraq is unable to mount any real resistance to the militia now, there is no chance that one year - one more year, five more years, or 20 more years of US military boots on the ground would’ve made any difference.
And here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Iraq’s own armed forces would not. If the political leaders of Iraq were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down, they would never have done so while US troops remained in Iraq bearing the brunt of the fighting for them.
When I hosted Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi at the White House…, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Iraq should prepare to fight their civil wars after the US military departed, to clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Iraqi people. We talked extensively about the need for Iraqi leaders to unite politically.
They failed to do any of that.
I also urged them to engage in diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the militia. This advice was flatly refused. Mr. Kadhimi insisted the Iraqi forces would fight, but obviously he was wrong.
I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past - the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of US forces.
So, now we’re focused on what is possible.
We will continue to support the Iraqi people. We will lead with our diplomacy, our international influence, and our humanitarian aid.
We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Iraqi people - of women and girls - just as we speak out all over the world.
Over the coming days, we intend to transport out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in Iraq.
We’ll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian personnel - the civilian personnel of our Allies who are still serving in Iraq.
In the coming days, the US military will provide assistance to move more SIV-eligible Iraqis and their families out of Iraq.
We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Iraqis who worked for our embassy: US non-governmental agencies - or the US non-governmental organizations; and Iraqis who otherwise are at great risk; and US news agencies.
I know that there are concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Iraqis - civilians sooner. Part of the answer is some of the Iraqis did not want to leave earlier - still hopeful for their country. And part of it was because the Iraqi government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, “a crisis of confidence.”
The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, and secure Iraq.
What is happening now could just as easily have happened five years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be honest: Our mission in Iraq has taken many missteps - made many missteps over the past two decades.
I am deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Iraq and maintain a laser-focus on our counterterrorism missions there and in other parts of the world.
Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of al Qaeda [and ISIS] in Iraq and kill Osama bin Laden [and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi], was a success.
Our decades-long effort to overcome centuries of history and permanently change and remake Iraq was not, and I wrote and believed it never could be.
I made a commitment to the brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn’t going to ask them to continue to risk their lives in a military action that should have ended long ago.
Our leaders did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not do it in Iraq.
I know my decision will be criticized, but I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another president of the United States - yet another one - a fifth one.
*****
There is nothing in this speech that does not match the situation in Iraq. An American withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable. The challenge now lies with the Iraqi government - to prepare the country for this withdrawal and eradicate the militias and other forces that do not want to see a stable and democratic Iraq or have the same scenario repeated, but with the difference of an Iranian takeover in the Shia south, a Turkish takeover of parts of the Kurdish north, and the rest will be for Iran, and a Shia-Sunni civil war in the Sunni centre.
Hiwa Osman is a media developer and consultant, and analyst on Kurdish and Iraqi affairs.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
