Ending military mission in Iraq not end of military support: Official

Martyn Warr, the director of the communication cell of the global coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), discussed the prospects of ending the coalition's military mission in Iraq, describing the move as “a transition” in an interview with Rudaw on the sidelines of the coalition members' high-level ministerial meeting in Washington, DC, on Monday.

Warr said: “Now that has been portrayed by some as an end to the military support from the global coalition to the government of Iraq, and that is incorrect. We're talking about a transition, a continuation of support, but just in other ways.” 

The United States and Iraq on Friday announced they had reached an agreement to end the military mission of the global anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq within a year. The agreement added that the mission will continue in northeast Syria (Rojava) for another two years. 

The military mission of the US-led coalition will “continue up until September 2025,” Warr said, adding “in Syria [it] will continue up until September 2026 and then, subject to the circumstances at the time, a discussion will be had as to whether it continues...” 

Below is the full transcript of Warr’s interview.

Rudaw: First things come first. Let's talk about the future of the US-led global coalition in Iraq and Syria. Could you explain to my audience what you have discussed with the Iraqis, and what will happen to the US global coalition in Iraq and Syria in the next year and the year after?

Martyn Warr: Very happy to talk about that. And if I may refer your listeners, yourself to a very important announcement that was made on Friday between the United States government and the government of Iraq. And the essential message there is as follows: that the global coalition's military component, which is known as Operation Inherent Resolve [OIR], is transitioning. It's transitioning into a series of - ideally - coordinated bilateral agreements between the government of Iraq and the United States and subsequently, no doubt, other members of the coalition as well. Now, that has been portrayed by some as an end to the military support from the global coalition to the government of Iraq, and that is incorrect. We're talking about a transition, a continuation of support, but just in other ways. That will continue up until September 2025 and the United States government and the government of Iraq have also agreed that support in terms of the countering of Daesh [ISIS] in Syria will continue up until September 2026. And then, subject to the circumstances at the time, a discussion will be had as to whether it continues or whatever. I just want to understand - 

It has not been sealed yet?

No, these are - I think it's quite important to understand that what we have here is a series of principles and concepts and proposals that have been agreed. The detail of it has to be worked out, including the longevity of it. And that's the sort of thing that will be worked out in the months and took up as the two parties talk through the details. A little bit more.

As you are talking through the details. According to the media reports, and according to the recent events in the region, we saw the ISIS activities - compared to last year - have been increased in both Iraq and Syria. Don't you think that talking about the ending of the mission will encourage or will contribute to resurgence of this group in both Iraq and Syria?

Well, first of all, I'm not talking about the end of the mission. I want to stress this point. This is a transition, maybe. Let me explain: ten years ago, Daesh rampaged across Iraq and Syria. And at the invitation of the government of Iraq, the global coalition intervened and supported Iraqi forces and also including the Kurdish Peshmerga to repel that threat. By 2017, Daesh had been ousted from Iraq, and by 2019 the coalition had achieved the territorial defeat of Daesh. Since 2019 the threat from Daesh has continued to diminish, and that threat is because the coalition, very much, with the involvement of Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces, kept pressure on [ISIS in] Iraq. This is not something that happens out of the thin air. It is that the reduction in threat has been caused by the pressure that the coalition has forced upon Daesh. We've now got to a stage where the Iraqi security forces are more,  much more, capable of maintaining that pressure themselves with a proportionate amount of resource and support from the global coalition, but less. And over time, that looks as if it will continue, but we will keep on checking that that is the case to ensure that we achieve the enduring defeat of Daesh. I must stress, this is not a withdrawal. This is not the end of the mission. It is a continuation of it. It's an evolution of it. I hope that helps.

That tells me you are going to keep supporting the Peshmerga forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) even beyond September 2025 and September 2026?

Well beyond 2025, yes. Beyond 2026, September [20]26, please read the announcement very carefully. It says very clearly, subject to the circumstances at the time. So we can't predict what the situation will look like in September 2026, but that is the overall fact.

So, speaking of the ISIS members, according to CENTCOM, there are about 2,500 ISIS militants still operating in the region. Also, we have a lot of ISIS militants and members in detention and in the prisons in northeast Syria (Rojava), and about 43,000 ISIS family members. So how could the US-led global coalition forces resolve and bring a solution to this issue? Is there any threat that these groups may be regrouping or contributing to their activities in the region?

So as far as the threat from ISIS in Iraq is concerned, our expression is: "They are down, but they are not out." We have to maintain the pressure upon them to keep them under control. In Syria, the situation is less good. We do see Daesh in Syria resurging a little bit. You can see that in the number of attacks, the amount of propaganda produced, the number of people who have been injured and killed. And we are very worried about the ‘Badiya’ and what Daesh is doing in that part of the world to rebuild its capability. And Syria, of course, is quite an unstable place, so that provides opportunities for Daesh to exploit.|

You are right to point to the fact that there are camps and detention facilities in northeast Syria where there are a large number of members of Daesh, but above all, families who have been caught up in the conflict - some of whom are linked to Daesh, some of whom, many of whom are not. And the majority of those people are children, and the majority of them were born in some of these camps and don't know anything about Daesh except that which they are being subjected to by Daesh propaganda. So it's very, very important that those people are repatriated to their countries to reduce the population, in particular of our home, so that they can be reintegrated into their communities and live a better life, a normal life.

So, why are the countries not repatriating their members? Even the United States has some members and some citizens there. For countries, what's the main barrier, why has it been a long time and you did not bring a solution to this issue?

So, the number of people in al-Hol has reduced dramatically over the last few years. There's been a 40 percent reduction in the number of people there: from 90,000 all the way down - 70,000, rather - all the way down to just over 40,000 now. And the majority of those in the camps are Iraqis and Syrians, and those numbers have fallen dramatically. And it’s a huge credit to those in Syria and especially in Iraq, to the government of Iraq, for the way in which they've been able to repatriate such large numbers back into their country and back into their communities. And there's a good number of citizens from third countries who are also being repatriated, with the support of the United States and other members of the coalition. I can't comment on the individual countries' views towards their citizens, but I think what I want to try and emphasize is, if you look at the trend, you look at the numbers, it's turning into a positive matter; whereas, it was certainly when you looked at al-Hol a year or two years ago. Is a very worrying matter. It still is worrying, but the trend is a positive one.

Will there be any change in the military posture in Iraq and in Syria from now on? For the coalition forces, moving some forces, for example, to Ain al-Asad or Erbil, or from Erbil to Qamishlo. And I have heard that you're going to establish a new base in Iraq to support your mission in Syria as well?

So, there will be a continuing military posture. And if you read the announcement on Friday, that gives you a little bit of detail about that. I can't comment on the individual operational changes that are going to take place that would not be for me to comment on.

Are you only looking into ISIS or are there some other groups as well. There are groups in Syria operating freely in some parts of Syria, like Afrin - they are violating the Kurdish people’s rights. So, what's, what's the coalition's thoughts on this? How are you going to deal with these groups, which some of you have hidden ISIS leaders in their bases?

So, my answer is on the name of this organization, which is ‘The Global Coalition Against Daesh.’ Clearly, if others are involved in supporting Daesh, then they are legitimate targets for the global coalition to consider. But above all, the mandate, the purpose of this global coalition is to counter Daesh.

So final question: Are you going to stay in Syria, if there's a need beyond September 2026? We do not have a government ruling all parts in Syria. It is not like Iraq and you don't have any connections with the Syrian government. How are you going to formulate your connections with the Syrian Kurds, the SDF, after September 2026?

So, the answer to your question is detailed in the announcement on Friday. Yes, until September 2026 the transition will continue up until then. And then, subject to the circumstances at the time, decisions will be made between the coalition led by the United States and the government of Iraq over the future of coalition activity in Syria.