US criticizes Iraq for not defending US bases

(March 21) The US State Department on Friday issued a statement declaring that they were enormously disappointed by the failure of the Iraqi government to protect US and coalition forces in the country.

The US responding to rocket attacks on camp near Baghdad

One rocket attack on Camp Taji last week killed one American soldier and a contractor as well as a UK solider. Iraq said it would investigate the attack. The US responded by several attacks on militia they believe may have been responsible for the attacks. The US mounted retaliatory attacks on those they thought might have launched the rockets before waiting for the Iraqis to complete any investigation.

Iraqis have asked the US to leave

The US described the militia targeted as Iran supported. However, they are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) that are approved and financed by the Iraqi government, in effect part of their own forces.

The US has stressed that the US troops are in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government mainly to help fight the Islamic State (ISIS). However, ISIS is mostly defeated and in survival mode. The US is not needed to meet the challenge of ISIS. Also, the PMF had been key fighters in the battle against ISIS. The US appears bound to stay in Iraq to try to lessen Iranian influence in the country.

However, in January the Iraqi parliament voted 170 to 0 to have all foreign troops leave Iraq. Trump responded by threatening to impose severe sanctions on Iraq if it tried to force US troops to leave. The US refused to discuss any withdrawal plans with Iraq.

Iraqi government in danger of collapse

US actions may provide more energy to protest movements against the government which is seen as incompetent, corrupt, and unable to resist US violations of its sovereignty. To side with the US after the US attacked its own security forces would most likely make the situation even more precarious for the government.

The government appears to be crumbling and is trying to get ready for new elections. Since the January vote to expel foreign troops two Iraqi PM have resigned, First Abdul Mahdi resigned but agree to serve as caretaker PM until a replacement was found. Next, Mohammed Allawi was chosen as PM designate but resigned after he was unable to form a government. Just last week Adnan Zufi was selected as PM designate.

US official warns Iraq

David Schenker, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs claimed that the present situation was a high point of contention between Iraq and the US. Schenker said: “it’s no secret that we’ve been, I think, enormously disappointed with the performance of the Government of Iraq in fulfilling its obligations to protect coalition forces, particularly American forces, who are in Iraq at the invitation of the government.”

Schenker warned that the Iraqi government is at a decision. He threatened that the US would take proactive action to defend its bases if the Iraqi government did not take action to hold those accountable for the attacks on US forces. There is no mention of the fact that the US has been asked to leave and that the forces the US holds accountable and attacked are de facto part of the Iraqi armed forces. The US has clearly violated Iraqi sovereignty in its attacks and has not waited for any Iraqi investigation. US actions are bound to arouse even more anger and protests and increase pressure on the Iraqi government to force to the US to leave.

 Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraqi military warned not to ask for US help

Tensions may have eased a bit since the US carried out the assassination of Qaseem Soleimani a top Iranian commander along with an Iraqi deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization forces in a drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport.

+ Add Image

Tensions still high

Iran in retaliation for the US assassinations attacked two US bases in Iraq with missiles. While no one appears to have been killed 64 in all are said to have had brain injuries. The Iraq parliament passed a resolution asking that all foreign troops leave Iraq 170 to 0 some time ago. The Iraqi government asked that the US discuss the withdrawal of US troops but the US refused to do so,

The tension continues as Iraqi military officials claim they have been ordered not to seek help from the US or coalition forces in any operations against the Islamic State (ISIS). (February 7) However, the whole point of the US being in Iraq is to counter ISIS. ISIS is now so weakened that it is basically in survival mode. It does not have permanent control of virtually any territory in Iraq now. Iraq does not really need the US to control any threat from ISIS. Nevertheless the US would like to stay in Iraq to counter the increasing influence of Iran on the Iraqi government.

So far Iraq has failed to expel US troops

In spite of being asked to leave by the Iraqi government and facing protests and even attacks on their bases the US shows no sign of leaving. Indeed, Trump has threatened Iraq with severe sanctions should it try to force the US out. However, at least by not cooperating with the US in joint military operations it is signalling its autonomy and desire to be independent of US forces.

Tensions after the US assassination performed without permission of the Iraqi government led to a brief suspension of joint operations. The US announced late last week they would be resumed but it seems clear that Iraq is not interested in doing so certainly not to the scale as was happening earlier. The US is anxious to resume operations to make it appear that the US is still needed and carrying out its mission in Iraq. However, it is clear that the US is no longer welcome.

An anonymous senior military official said: “After the killing of Soleimani, the Iraqi government decided to inform us formally not to cooperate and not to seek assistance from the U.S.-led international coalition in any operation. Until now, we have not asked the Americans to provide assistance, we rely on our capabilities to pursue IS elements. The presence of the Americans in the joint operations is only formal."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump administration suspends all delivery of weapons to Iraq

(January 29)The Trump Administration has suspended delivery of all weapons to Iraq. This includes the delivery of Sidewinder and Maverick missiles that were part of a $1.8 billion contract that had been signed in 2016.

There have been no recent deliveries

The last delivery was weapons was back in November. Perhaps the Trump administration had already paused delivery and is now just making a suspension official. A US Air Force spokesperson confirmed the pause and suggested it was due to security concerns. Iraq has not commented on the matter.

The US may worry some missiles may be used against the US

There is growing tension between the US and Iraq especially since the US assassinated key Iranian commander Soleimani in Baghdad. There has been a resolution in the Iraqi parliament passed 170 to 0 demanding that all foreign troops leave Iraq. There have been many protests and some attacks against US bases and the US embassy in Iraq.

The US has threatened sanctions against Iraq if they are forced to leave. Military aid cuts are also planned.

There have been a number of strikes against Iraqi government approved and financed militia especially in western Iraq. Israel and the US are suspected of being behind these strikes. The US naturally does not want Iraq to gain control of its own airspace as that could result in losses for the US and Israel. Hence, the US has a keen interest in limiting the number of missiles that Iraq has for its F-16s.

A recent article notes: "The halt includes the US Air Force’s program of supplying parts and missiles to Iraq’s fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers, the news portal Inside Defense reported on Monday. Deliveries will begin again “when the environment in Iraq is safe enough to resume,” USAF spokesman Brian Brackens told Inside Defense in an email."The US and probably Israel have been carrying out operations over Iraqi airspace without the consent of the Iraqi government. This was the case in the assassination of Soleimani in Baghdad where the US mounted a drone attack assassinating Soleimani near the Baghdad airport. Israeli intelligence may have been involved.

It is not clear why the US is also withholding ground attack weapons. These are used extensively in attacking ISIS. Perhaps the US wants to make Iraq more dependent on the US in the continual containment of ISIS that appears to be in survival mode at present. Perhaps, the US wants to make Iraq more dependent on US forces to keep ISIS under control. No doubt US want to remain in Iraq to counter Iranian influence. However, most Iraqis are unlikely to see this as a legitimate reason for the US to stay once the ISIS threat is gone. However, the US can argue that Iraq needs help to ensure that the threat of ISIS is kept under control.

The US claims it has no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq. If it does so, it appears the withdrawal will be only upon terms dictated by the US: "There are no plans by the US military to withdraw from Iraq,” Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Jonathan Rath Hoffman told reporters at a press briefing earlier this month, adding that “the consensus in Iraq seems to be that the United States forces there are a force for good,” even though the parliament’s resolution suggests the exact opposite"

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US refuses to discuss with Iraq the withdrawal of US troops

(January 11) According to a Washington Post report the Iraqi PM has asked for the US to devise a mechanism for withdrawal of its troops from the country.

	1 of 2

The Iraq parliament passed the motion 170 to 0 but many Kurdish and Sunni members did not attend. The non-binding resolution read: “The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory. The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

US reaction

The US has quickly shown that it will not cooperate in Iraqi plans to eject US and other foreign troops The US State Dept. has signaled that it is not at all willing to discuss a mechanism for US withdrawal according to a recent report: The State Department said in a statement Friday that the U.S. will not hold discussions with Iraq regarding American troop withdrawal from the country.“At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East,” State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.“There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq,” Ortagus added, writing that “America is a force for good in the Middle East.”"

It is hard to see how the US is a force for the good in the Middle East when it directly opposes a decision by a sovereign country. This is happening after the US assassinated a key official of neighboring Iran without getting permission from the Iraqi government. It also assassinated a key official of an Iraqi government militia group approved and financed militia. How can the US be for a sovereign Iraq when it has violated its sovereignty several times without even an apology? All the US says in its defense is that it has not received a formal request to leave. Yet it has a request to plan a mechanism for leaving that it refuses to discuss.

Letter suggesting the US would leave called a mistake

The Pentagon said that a letter sent to the Iraqi Defense Ministry saying that the US would leave Iraq was a mistake and that US troops would be remaining in the country. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley: “That letter is a draft, it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should never have been released." Yet the Iraqi PM insists that he had received the letter with a signature and had sought and received clarification about the translation. The issue just seems to have dropped off the mainstream news media with no explanation as to the contradiction except that it is clear that the US is not intending to withdraw voluntarily.

US threatened Iraq in response to parliamentary resolution

Trump responded angrily to the Iraqi parliament resolution requesting that US troops withdraw:" We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.,..If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame. If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq."

Trump has made it clear that the US has no intention of leaving Iraq voluntarily. Given that the US is supposed to be in Iraq at Iraq's request the US may face a legal problem. Iraq could bring a case before the International Criminal Court(ICC). However, the US does not recognize and opposes the court. Iraq could find itself subject to further sanctions if it goes to the Court. In September of 2018 John Bolton announced a new policy toward the ICC: "In a September 2018 speech, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, announced a change in US policy toward the court and outlined several steps the US would take if ICC investigations reached US nationals or the nationals of US allies. In addition to travel bans, Bolton threatened prosecutions and financial sanctions against ICC staff, as well as against countries and companies assisting in ICC investigations of US nationals. He warned that the US would restart long-abandoned efforts to negotiate agreements with other countries against surrendering US nationals to the court and put other governments’ diplomatic, military, and intelligence ties with the US at risk if those governments cooperate with the ICC in investigations of the US or its allies."

Previously published in the Digital Journal