The New York Times: Why are US forces still in Iraq?

With the continuing attacks against American forces in Iraq,

in the American newspaper "New York Times"

the feasibility of these forces remaining there, calling for their withdrawal, saying that their stay causes a number of problems for America and Iraq.

The article, written by Trita Parsi and Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute for Research in Washington, referred to the attacks attributed to Iraqi Shiite militias, with drones, on American forces in Iraq last month, saying that these attacks were not surprising, and that the American presence in Iraq is not welcome, although More attacks are bound to come as long as the administration of US President Joe Biden decides to keep troops there.

Staying won't prevent attacks

He explained that the presence of US forces would not prevent "terrorist" attacks from occurring, and that they could not contain Iran, which had strengthened its grip on some Iraqi military institutions since 2003, and suggested that American soldiers would die in vain because, as is the case in Afghanistan, they are charged with the impossible task of Elimination of "terrorism" in a foreign country.

"While Washington's foreign policy establishment grapples with the risks of leaving, it appears to be ignoring the obvious costs of staying," he said.

The article drew attention to Biden's statement before ending an era of major military operations, saying that that era will not really end until America withdraws all its forces from Iraq.

Invitation to withdraw immediately

The article called on Biden to announce plans for a gradual withdrawal of forces starting no later than this spring, noting that if Biden does not act from now, attacks on American forces will inevitably increase, and this will make leaving more politically difficult with the increased risk of the United States being drawn into conflict. Greater in case of miscalculation or provocation by militias, Washington or Iran.

The article stated that supporters of staying in Iraq argue that it is critical to gather intelligence on groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and prevent the opponent from filling any void created by the departure of the United States, describing this with arguments almost identical to the case of Afghanistan.

"But the truth is that the American presence helped fuel the insurgency in Iraq," he said. "Al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic State, were able to profit from their gains against the government and the chaos that followed, and Iraq and its neighbors have an increasing ability to prevent the re-emergence of these organizations."

The Iraqi government will not collapse

He added that the collapse of the Iraqi government is not likely with the departure of US forces, just as the artificial government in Afghanistan collapsed in front of the Taliban movement.

The article also drew attention to the fact that the US forces ended their combat mission in Iraq last December, and since then the Biden administration has confirmed that the remaining forces in Iraq are there in a purely advisory capacity.

He pointed out that the Americans were on this path before at the end of 2014, when former US President Barack Obama similarly declared that "our combat mission in Afghanistan will end, and we will move entirely to training, advice and assistance missions." However, it required 107 deaths and injuries. 612 US soldiers in action, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and another 6 years until US operations really end.

The article explained that the United States does not have a solution to Iraq's problems, and cannot mitigate Iraqis' frustration with unresponsive government and political violence, nor is it qualified to mediate between rival factions in Iraq or dismantle the web of intersecting interests impeding progress.