On Monday, the Pentagon issued what seemed to be an appropriate response to statements from the prime minister of Iraq and a pair of votes in the Iraqi parliament insisting that U.S. forces leave the country. For more than a decade, American troops have officially been in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. All military bases in Iraq, including those built by the U.S. following its invasion of the country, are also the property of the Iraqi military. So U.S. forces are regarded as guests at those bases—guests whose sole authorized purpose for being present is to help train Iraqi military forces.
What followed the issuing of the letter was pure chaos. Within minutes of the news of the letter appearing on U.S. media, the Defense Department began saying that, contrary to what was said in the letter, U.S. forces were not withdrawing from Iraq. Minutes after that, the Defense Department was calling the letter “a mistake.” On a phone call to reporters, it was declared that the letter was simply a draft of a potential announcement that had circulated in Washington for “coordination purposes.” Which is odd, since the Department of Defense not only issued this letter, but it also provided an Arabic translation.
Though there has been no official statement from the White House, it seems entirely possible that the letter was withdrawn after Trump saw it appearing in the media. On Sunday night, Trump issued a tweet saying that the United States has “a very extraordinarily expensive air base” in Iraq, one that cost “cost billions of dollars to build." And, Trump declared, "We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it." So Donald Trump has announced an occupation policy, one according to which U.S. “guest” forces will not leave unless Iraq provides billions in ransom—for a base that the U.S. built for U.S. purposes.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, legislators have passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the expulsion of all U.S. forces. In a second vote, they officially declared all U.S. forces remaining in Iraq terrorists.
The end result is that the 5,300 active U.S. military in Iraq are stationed in bases that are also home to the over 54,000 active ground forces of the Iraqi military, which the U.S. has also spent over $25 billion to train and equip. Those U.S. forces are now officially foreign terrorists on the same bases as the local military. Which makes the letter now declared “a mistake” about 50,000 times more reasonable policy than the tweet that Trump issued. But it’s the tweet that’s official.
For years, there has been strong support in the Iraqi parliament for ordering U.S. troops out of the country. The population of Iraq is 68% Shiite. Groups such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite group oppressed under Saddam Hussein, quickly rose to power following the invasion of the country. Powered by a sense of justice long denied under decades of domination by a subset of the Sunni minority, a majority of the population supports groups such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the numerous Shiite militia groups.
However, there has also been a faction within the parliament—one closely aligned with the leading party—that also favored allowing U.S. forces to stay. That was in part because many did view the U.S. as a stabilizing force, helping the fractious nation, defined by a line on a map rather than historic associations, to cling together. That group has also not been keen on losing the supply of money and materials brought in with the U.S. presence.
Also, while there had been a natural tendency of the formerly oppressed Shiite majority to look toward Shiite Iran for support, that admiration for the government across the border had cooled. A 2015 survey showed 88% of Iraqi Shiites having a favorable opinion of Iran. But in 2018 that was down to just 47%, as Iraqis held Iran responsible for ongoing conflict in Iraq, for the excesses of the Shiite militias, and for corruption in the Iraqi government. They also soured on Iran for something entirely nonpolitical: Iran dammed the rivers flowing into southern Iraq to generate electricity and irrigation on the Iranian side of the border, leading to water shortages in Iraq.
Shiites opposed to Iran actually held the majority just a few weeks ago, which was why there were anti-Iranian protests in Baghdad, and Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi was blocking any movement of a bill ordering U.S. forces to depart.
No one has run a poll in the last month, but it’s a very good bet that feelings have changed. Following the U.S. strike against Shiite militia bases in Iraq—over the objection of the Iraqi government—militia groups and protesters swarmed the U.S. embassy. What made them leave was not a U.S. show of force, but an agreement by Abdul-Mahdi that he would no longer block the legislation ordering U.S. troops out of Iraq.
The assassination of Soleimani and Iraqi militia leaders only solidified that position. The protesters now marching in Iraq are shouting, “Death to America,” and the vote to expel U.S. forces passed parliament decisively.
The U.S. Department of Defense can say the letter released on Monday is a mistake all it likes. But unless it is prepared to conduct a second overthrow of Iraq, it had better have a second draft handy. Withdrawing U.S. forces at this point is not only the only reasonable response, but the only thing that might salvage something nondisastrous from this situation.