US offers a partial withdrawal of its troops from Iraq

(Feb. 16) Back in January this year, the Iraqi parliament voted 170 to 0 for a resolution requiring all foreign troops be withdrawn from Iraq. The resolution was not binding upon the government and a number of lawmakers stayed away from the vote.

Iraq asks for meetings with the US to discuss troop withdrawal

The former Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi asked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to send a delegation to discuss steps to be taken for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. There are approximately 5,200 troops in Iraq whose main mission was to train Iraqi troops and help in the fight against the Islamic State. However, the Islamic State has been mostly defeated and no longer holds any significant territory. It is more or less in survival mode. While the US is no longer needed the US wants to remain in Iraq to counter Iranian influence.

The US assassinated a top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani as well as a deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces an umbrella group of militias approved and financed by the Iraqi government. There were many protests after the drone attack near Baghdad airport. As the attack did not have government approval many considered it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

In response to the Iraqi PM's request the US State Dept. said that it would not discuss a troop withdrawal but would discuss the "appropriate force posture in the Middle East". This response no doubt raised tension between the US and the Iraqi government.

Trump had a violent negative reaction to the vote

Trump was angered by the vote in the Iraqi and demand for troop withdrawal. He threatened Iraq with sanctions such as they had never seen before if they forced the US to withdraw. On January 10 he also suggested the might block some $35 billion of Iraqi funds sitting in a US account.

The former Iraqi PM backed off somewhat but tensions remained high. However, the US is now taking a less negative stance and is offering the Iraqis at least a partial withdrawal.

Secret talks in Amman Jordan

Secret talks were held outside of Iraq at the private residence of the Canadian ambassador to Jordan in Amman according to the Middle East Eye. At the meeting were a US military representative, a NATO official and a senior Iraqi security adviser. The US State Dept. would not comment on the meeting. Similarly a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada also would not comment on the meeting.

The US appears to be willing to leave some Shi'ite majority areas and even cut down the number of troops in Baghdad. The US military representative said: “We are prepared to leave some of the Shia-majority areas, like the base in Balad. Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad .” The US rule in Baghdad would be reduced to guarding the airport and the US embassy in the Green Zone. However the US is categorically ruled out any withdrawal from the biggest air base in Iraq Ain al-Assad the largest US base in Iraq indeed in the whole Middle East.

The new US position represents a major shift but it remains to be seen if the withdrawal offer will be sufficient to satisfy many in Iraq who want to see a full withdrawal. As the appended video shows there are still ongoing protests against the government in Iraq.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraqi parliament passes resolution to expel all foreign troops from Iraq

(January 5) Today the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign troops from the country as tensions are escalating between Iran and the US but between Iraq and the US as well after a US attack that killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.

The US attack in Baghdad

A recent Bloomberg article reports: "General Soleimani, who led the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds force, was killed in a car late Thursday by a Reaper drone capable of firing laser-guided weapons as he was leaving a Baghdad airport access road, a U.S. official said. The strike also killed the deputy commander of an Iraqi militia group, the Shiite-dominated Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), who was with Soleimani."

An NPR article focuses on Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis the deputy leader of PMF: "Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed in a drone strike early Friday, is getting the vast majority of the media attention. But several others were also killed in the attack, including militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. For years, Muhandis has been one of the most important military figures in Iraq, as the deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces."

Note that not only Soleimani was killed but the deputy commander of the PMF an Iraq group of militias that is approved and paid for by the Iraqi government and regarded as part of its forces. It is this action as much as the killing of Soleimani that will fuel Iraqi anger. Most news reports hardly mention this killing, as if it did not matter.

US earlier attacked Iraqi militia that is part of PMC

About a week ago a BBC article noted: "Weapons caches and command and control centres at five sites associated with Kataib Hezbollah were hit on Sunday, the defence department said. An Iraqi paramilitary force said 25 fighters were killed and 51 injured." At the time Kataib Hezbollah leader Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, who is also known as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, warned that the response of the group would be very tough on US forces in Iraq."

Kataib Hezbollah(KH) is an Iraq government approved and financed militia

Mainstream media often refer to the predominantly Shia militia within the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces(PMF) as Iran-backed. However, they usually fail to note that they are Iraqi government approved and financed, and indeed are regarded much like regular forces. Wikipedia describes the PMF as follows: "The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), also known as the People's Mobilization Committee (PMC) and the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) (Arabic: الحشد الشعبي‎ al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī),[22] is an Iraqi state-sponsored umbrella organization composed of some 40 militias that are mostly Shia Muslim groups, but also include Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Yazidi groups.[23][24] The popular mobilization units as a group was formed in 2014 and have fought in nearly every major battle against ISIL.[25] It has been called the new Iraqi Republican Guard after it was fully reorganized in early 2018 by its then-Commander in Chief Haider al-Abadi. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued "regulations to adapt the situation of the Popular Mobilization fighters," giving them ranks and salaries equivalent to other branches of the Iraqi military.[3]" KH is brigade 45 of the PMF.

Thus the US is attacking what are in effect security forces of the Iraqi government not Iran or simply Iran proxies. You would never know this from reading typical mainstream accounts.

The Iraqi parliament resolution

The 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."

Note the resolution contains no direct condemnation of the US attack nor does it even specifically mention the attack. The resolution is not a law and not binding so unless further legislation is passed the US can simply ignore it. The Iraqi PM Adel Mahdi had earlier called for an end to foreign troop presence. Mahdi had said that Iraq could immediately end the presence of foreign troops or reconsider a draft resolution that would tie the presence of US troops to training Iraqi security forces in the fight against ISIL.

Analyst Tareq Harb told Al Jazeera that the PM's call to eject US troops was in anticipation of a strong reaction and condemnation of the attack from the public and pro-Iran political and militia groups which have been calling for expulsion of US troops for days now. Harb said: "Abdul Mahdi had no option but to take a strong stance against the presence of US troops in Iraq. He was also been shrewd in taking such a stance as he leaves the decision in the hands of the parliament."

The resolution in itself does not order US troops expelled and critics regard it as weak.

Muqtadada al-Sadr's response

The Iraq Shia leader al-Sadr who heads the largest bloc in parliament was critical of the response: "I consider this a weak response insufficient against American violation of Iraqi sovereignty and regional escalation....Finally, I call specifically on the Iraqi resistance groups and the groups outside Iraq more generally to meet immediately and announce the formation of the International Resistance Legions." Al-Sadr demanded the immediate cancellation of the security agreement with the US, closure of the US embassy and the expulsion of US troops in a humiliating manner.

The Iraqi government will no doubt be subject to demonstrations against it demanding more actions against the US in Iraq. Meanwhile, the mainstream media seem to be fixated on the Iranian reaction to the US attack while completely ignoring the situation in Iraq. This is no doubt because the US official narrative considers the PMF , part of Iraq's own security forces simply as proxies for Iran. The mainstream media simply goes along with this narrative. The appended video is from a Turkish channel.

It appears unlikely that there will be any concrete move to remove US troops from Iraq and the US can safely ignore the Iraqi parliamentary resolution.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

A number of US troops operating in Iraq have been wounded

(February 23) US troops operating in the Mosul area of Iraq have come under fire by Islamic State forces in the last six to eight weeks as they move closer to the front lines. A number have been wounded US military officials finally admitted.

Add

Colonel John Dorrian, a spokesperson for Inherent Resolve revealed the information at a Pentagon news conference saying: "Yes, they have been under fire at different times." A defense official said that a number of US troops had been wounded but refused to say how many had been casualties. The US troops are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi units in the fight to retake the city of Mosul. The east half of the city has been retaken. Dorrian refused to provide any specifics on firefights that have taken place but noted that when attacked the units enter combat mode to defend themselves: "When someone is shooting at you, that is combat. Yes, that has happened."

The rules of engagement for the US troops in Iraq appear to have been relaxed under the Trump administration. An antiwar.com article notes:Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend today confirmed that under President Trump, those restrictions have been loosened quite a bit, and the troops are being embedded closer and closer to the front lines all the time, particularly around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.The coalition forces have posted a number of photos on their Twitter and Facebook accounts that show US troops around Mosul calling in air and artillery strikes in the attempt to liberate western Mosul from the Islamic State.

Lt.. General Stephen Townsend recently reported that US troops had been sent closer to the front lines in the Mosul offensive. Some of the woundings may have happened as long ago as eight weeks before Trump took over as president but are being revealed just now. An antiwar.com article suggests:Though the US is often lax in reporting on civilian casualties in their assorted wars, up until now they’ve been pretty forward with offering figures on US military casualties. The lack of timely and precise updates on military casualties may be an effort to further limit public opposition to the conflicts by denying the public a clear picture of what is happening abroad.

Trump has requested the military to prepare options for the fight against terrorism. It appears that in Iraq and Syria the options are for the same types of approach as Obama but on a larger scale plus the option of sending ground troops. However, a Reuters article suggests the options will represent a much more global approach. Marine General Joseph Dunford said:"This is not about Syria and Iraq. It's about trans-regional threat. So, when we go to the president with options, it will be in the context of the trans-regional threat. Our plan, to be successful, needs to, number one, cut the connective tissue between regional groups that now form a trans-regional threat."Dunford remarked that according to US military estimate the Islamic State(IS) had attracted 45,000 foreign fighters coming from more than 100 different countries.

Obama to send up to 1,500 more troops to Iraq for a total of 3,000 troops without boots on the ground

- The White House has announced that US president Barack Obama has authorised sending up to 1500 more troops to Iraq. If all 1500 are sent then the number of troops in Iraq will be doubled.
Obama has been adamant that there will be no boots on the ground in Iraq but he had already sent 1500 and if another 1500 go, there will be a total of 3,000 non-boots on the ground. No doubt Senator John McCain who actually thinks there should be boots on the ground in Iraq will be pleased and support the move.
Of course Obama insists that all of these troops are merely to help train and advise the Iraqi government and Kurdish forces that are fighting the Islamic State. The White House announcement said: ""As a part of our strategy for strengthening partners on the ground, President Obama today authorised the deployment of up to 1,500 additional US military personnel in a non-combat role to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish forces," " The Iraq and Syria missions against the Islamic State come with a price tag. Obama will ask Congress for $5.6 billion to fund operations including $1.6 billion for the "Iraq, Train and Equip Fund".
Some of the new troops will arrive in Iraq within the next few weeks according to a defence official. He also said that some of the new troops will be deployed in the west of Anbar where the Iraqi government forces have been in retreat. General Martin Dempsey recently advised that troops should be sent to Anbar but he wanted the Iraqi government to arm the local Sunni tribes. However, any Sunni tribes who accept that offer are liable to be wiped out by the Islamic State before they ever receive the arms. Dempsey told a news conference that due to recent gains in Anbar ""we need to expand the train, advise and assist mission into al-Anbar province, but the precondition for that is that the government of Iraq is willing to arm the tribes. By the way, we have positive indications that they (Iraqi government) are. But we haven't begun to do it yet.""
There are some reports that advisers are actually joining in battles on occasion. A Daily Beast reporter near the front lines of a battle was told that he could not go further because there were "guests" coming: " “Yes, we want to let you in, but we can’t,” said one high-level Kurdish government official. “We have visitors, you’ll see them,” he stated. As we tried to decipher his cryptic response our answer came: multiple armored Toyotas swept down the mountain, passing within feet of us. The Toyotas were packed with what appeared to be bearded Western Special Operations Forces. I watched the trucks pass and saw for myself the crews inside them. They didn’t wear any identifying insignia but they were visibly Western and appeared to match all the visual characteristics of American special operations soldiers."
With the Republicans in control of both houses the general trend of Obama's war policy of intervening everywhere as the global cop is not likely to change. After all, the present secretary of defense Chuck Hagel is a Republican. Obama will be well positioned to finish his term following the path of his predecesor George W. Bush. Obama has avoided suffering US casualties by not having large contingents of American boots on the ground in his interventions. Obma prefers drones, air attacks, and arming proxy troops who will suffer the casualties, but this does not seem to have given him any popularity boost.