In a letter dated Sunday and signed by US Brigadier General William Seely, whose authenticity AFP confirmed with Iraqi and US Defense officials, the Marine General is seen suggesting that US troops would withdraw from Iraq.
“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” the letter read.
The letter followed a non-binding Iraqi parliamentary resolution to have foreign troops in Iraq expelled by the government after deadly US airstrikes against Iranian and Iran-backed targets in Iraq, including the high profile killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani on Friday near Baghdad International Airport.
Defense officials in the US were quick to deny its 5,000 troops were being withdrawn from Iraq, calling the release of the letter a "mistake."
“It was a mistake, an honest mistake, a draft unsigned letter, because we are moving forces around,” Pentagon Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley said in a Pentagon press conference on Monday.
“…It was unsigned, it should not have been released…poorly worded, implies withdrawal, that is not what’s happening."
“…It should not have been sent,” Milley asserted, posting that it was sent to the Iraqi side to get feedback.
As part of the US-led Global Coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), American troops train, advise and assist Iraqi forces in the fight against a resurgent ISIS.
A White House official told CNN that US President Donald Trump, who had a day earlier threatened to impose “never seen before” sanctions on Iraq, is “concerned” about the letter mistake.
The President “wanted it cleaned up” and told his aides to do so, the White House official added.
“We are repositioning forces throughout the region. That letter is inconsistent of where we are right now,” Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper said.
“We have increased helicopter movement in Iraq between Baghdad and Taji and other camps and stations, and we are bringing in forces from Kuwait. So there are increased levels of US troops movements in rotary-wing helicopters,” Milley added.
The Iraqi government’s ability to act on the parliamentary resolution is unclear, as it’s caretaker status casts doubt on its legal jurisdiction to end treaties.
.png&w=3840&q=75)
