Foreign Policy: That is why the US embassy in Iraq is the embodiment of an outdated arrogance

An American magazine reported on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's threat two weeks ago to close his country's embassy in Baghdad as a response to the ongoing targeting of it, and the apparent inability of the Iraqi government to deal with the matter effectively.

Author Stephen A.

Cook - In a report published Monday in the American magazine "Foreign Policy" (FOREIGN POLICY), it is difficult to say whether there are other means that might enable the United States to protect the embassy, ​​or if Pompeo's threat was designed to achieve another diplomatic goal.

Despite this, the embassy closure remains necessary.

He added that the embassy in Baghdad is more than just a building, as the complex includes 20 office buildings, 6 housing complexes and various amenities for the employees, who at some point reached 16,000 people.

The total cost of the embassy complex was $ 750 million, which embodies what he described as American arrogance and arrogance in Iraq.

And unlike in Disneyland in the United States, no dreams come true there.

Indeed, the incoming administration should close the complex and turn it over to the Iraqis, as it would be a wonderful addition to the University of Baghdad.

Getting rid of the current embassy compound in Baghdad does not mean that the United States should give up the city altogether, the writer says.

The Foreign Ministry proposed the idea of ​​transferring the ambassador to Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, but that would not help.

Instead, Washington should purchase a building in Baghdad commensurate with its actual mission, role, and influence in Iraq.

If the current complex reflects the arrogance of the past two decades, the establishment of a new headquarters will symbolize American humility after an illegal invasion and occupation.

The writer emphasized that there is not much left for the United States to do in Iraq.

US officials have made Iraqi political and economic reform part of the recent strategic dialogue between the two countries, but it is difficult to take these goals seriously.

It has been more than 17 years since the invasion of Iraq, and there is no reason to believe that the United States will be more successful than before.

Iraqis will have to chart their own path if they want a decent political system and a thriving economy.

The writer believes that the Iraqi forces are still facing the threat of ISIS, especially in Diyala and Salah al-Din (Reuters)

Trump assessment

The writer believes that the United States must continue the mission of maintaining security in Iraq, and the related efforts to keep what he described as extremists under control and to ensure Iraqi sovereignty.

These goals are intertwined with each other and require great American attention.

He added: It is true that Mosul was retaken from the grip of ISIS in July 2017 and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in Syria in October 2019, but there was a new attack by the organization on the police forces in Kirkuk this week, and the organization is active in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces.

Consequently, President Trump's repeated statements about defeating ISIS are imprecise.

One can understand the desire to finally withdraw from Iraq, but the United States - according to the article - not only bears some responsibility towards the Iraqis, but also no one will want to return to this country once the American forces leave.

Based on the inverted logic governing the US confrontation with Iraq, the best way out is to stay there for a longer period.

And the article continued: It may seem to some a prelude to the threat of an endless occupation, but it is not.

The United States has only 3 thousand soldiers in Iraq.

It could not occupy this country at nearly 50 times that number during the height of President George W. Bush's popularity.

Indeed, the presence of a relatively modest training mission in Iraq is not an occupation unless it is politically assumed to be so.

The writer pointed out that the most challenging aspect of the security mission is to help empower the Iraqi army and other security forces to protect Iraq's sovereignty.

Currently, Turkish forces and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are intervening, through several pro-Kurdish militias, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), as well as US forces in Iraq.

The Iraqis cannot do anything about it, but Iran is the biggest threat among them.

It is quite logical that the Iranians want to influence Iraqi politics.

Moreover - the writer says - the Iranians use the militias affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard to further their agenda.

These militias played an important role in parallel with the Iraqi security forces and the Americans in the biggest battles against ISIS, but they did not integrate into the Iraqi chain of command and did not lay down their weapons.

Instead, groups such as the Hezbollah Brigades and the Badr Organization, as well as dozens of other organizations, continue to serve as tools of Iranian power, and are responsible for the attacks on the US embassy, ​​the use of snipers against protesters, the promotion of the economic interests of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and the intimidation of the Iraqi government. .

This is not only considered a security threat, but it also contributes to skewed politics in Iraq.

Mustafa Al-Kazemi (Media Office of the Iraqi Prime Minister)

Amal in Al-Kazemi

In general, the Iraqis will remain vulnerable in the eyes of the Iranians as long as the security forces do not have the capacity and confidence to impose their authority.

This is related to the issue of political will.

But, for the time being, the Iraqis have a prime minister (Mustafa al-Kazemi) and he appears willing to try to rein in Iran's proxies.

In June, Al-Kazemi oversaw the arrest of approximately 10 members of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah Brigades on charges of plotting attacks around Baghdad.

In response, the militia arrested family members of the military officers involved in the raid and detention of their comrades, and also entered the Green Zone in armored vehicles in a show of force, resulting in the fighters being quickly released.

In late July, a well-known researcher, Hisham Al-Hashemi, an advisor to Al-Kazemi, was assassinated in a strike believed to have been planned by Tehran's proxies in Iraq.

The writer pointed out that it is clear that the efforts made to subjugate the militias have not succeeded, not to mention the deterioration of the security situation in many ways.

The usual targeting of US forces also remained a major challenge to US commanders.

As a result, the Trump administration has strengthened the US presence in Iraq and withdraws forces from some bases there.

And he added: It is clear that Trump wants to get out of Iraq and the Middle East in general, but he should leave his troop levels as they are.

And while the military withdrawal fulfills the president's promise he made during the 2016 elections, it is ultimately counterproductive.

In other words, letting the Iraqis face the threat of the Islamic State and the will of the Iranians will only perpetuate the weakness and instability of their country, thus giving Tehran a strategic victory. For its part, the United States is showing more patience in Iraq, but this is not a task a huge embassy might help accomplish so much.