Mohammed Al-Minshawi-Washington
Washington has been in a state of anarchy, against the backdrop of the Iraqi parliament's request for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi territory, which came after the killing of the commander of the Iranian Quds Brigades, Qassem Soleimani, last Friday.
Within two hours, between two and a half and four and a half American time, several official American statements came out which are contradictory, perhaps reflecting the great differences witnessed by the American administration in managing its relationship with Iraq, especially after the killing of Qassem Soleimani in Iraqi territory.
After news of the withdrawal came out, backed by a picture of a letter, it appears that Brigadier General William Cilly III, commander of the American Task Force in Iraq, addressed him to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and he stated that his forces would reposition their forces outside Iraq in the coming weeks. US Defense Secretary Mark Esper denied this.
He added, during a visit to Jordan, that Baghdad had not asked Washington to withdraw its forces, adding that the game and its bases in the region had changed.
And former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley advised the US administration to "clearly announce its commitment to the sovereignty of Iraq, and that its military tasks there are limited to training the Iraqi army and fighting the Islamic State."
The US Secretary of Defense stressed that his country will take deterrence measures and precautionary measures if the need arises to protect American forces in the region, to reflect the changing geo-strategic nature of the position of American forces within the Iraqi borders.
The former ambassador to Iraq, Robert Ford, considered that the January 3 attack (killing Soleimani) did not win the approval of any Iraqi group or leader. The Iraqis agreed that the attack was "a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as Washington had not previously informed the Iraqi government of the attack, She did not get her approval. "
In the midst of statements by senior military officials regarding the denial of any plans to withdraw US forces from Iraq, the Joint Chief of Staff, General Mike Millie, stated that "it was a mistake to publish this letter, it was a preliminary draft and it was not signed, we are consulting with the Iraqis, and the bottom line is that American forces will not leave. "
Military expert David de Roche of the National Defense University in Washington, who previously held senior military positions, believes that "Trump wants to withdraw from what he sees as the Iraq quagmire and will be happy with that if he is convinced that with his withdrawal he will not have to return there after two or three years, as happened with the last Withdrawal from Iraq. "
Roche told Al-Jazeera Net that "Washington can deal with the results of the desire of the Iraqi parliament to remove the American forces, but so far there is no official request from the Iraqi government to do so, and what came from a parliamentary request was within the framework of a political game in the Iraqi parliament, and I imagine that the matter will change within weeks." Few. "
As for the expert, Calais Thomas, at the new American National Security Institute, she said in an interview with Al-Jazeera Net that if the Trump administration ignores the request of the Iraqi government to withdraw our forces from Iraqi lands, the relations of the two countries will be damaged and this will serve anti-American groups inside Iraq, as it will provide an appropriate environment that opens the door to the use of force against American forces.
Charles Dunn of the Middle East Institute agrees with Calais, and says if the Iraqi parliament passes a binding resolution to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq, and the Iraqi government ends its bilateral defense agreement with the United States, this will represent great pressure on Washington to withdraw its forces from Iraq.
"Any attacks on diplomats or Americans or on American interests inside Iraq may accelerate the pace of withdrawal," according to Dan.