Shafaq News/As talks between Baghdad and Washington regarding the withdrawal of US troopsfrom Iraq continue, a central question remains: Does Iraq still need theinternational coalition's presence? This issue takes on new urgency as the USCentral Command (CENTCOM) warns of a potential ISIS resurgence, with attacksdoubling in the first half of 2024 compared to the previous year.
While theIraqi government declares ISIS defeated, some analysts suggest the US is usingthis renewed threat as justification for a continued presence. Others, however,argue that Iraq still relies on the coalition and the US for various reasons,including security, political, and diplomatic support.
Coalition'sRole: Shifting Focus
The GlobalCoalition against Daesh (ISIS), led by the United States, was formed inSeptember 2014. Comprising 87 members, its main goal is to degrade and ensurethe enduring defeat of ISIS. The coalition collaborates with the Government of Iraqto stabilize and redevelop areas previously controlled by ISIS, including thosedamaged by conflict.
Anotherobjective is to support Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga in delivering themilitary defeat of ISIS in Iraq. The coalition's military mission, known asCombined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, now focuses on advisingand assisting, as well as providing specialist operational capabilities such assurveillance and intelligence support. The coalition also aims to counterISIS's efforts to exploit the economic assets and resources of the Iraqipeople.
"TheGovernment of Iraq is a leading member of the Global Coalition, and today theIraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga are actively working to ensure Daesh cellscan find no safe havens from which to resurge," says the coalition on itsofficial website.
Calls ToExpel
Since ISISlost its hold on Iraq in 2017, there have been calls for the withdrawal ofcoalition forces, especially following a US airstrike in January 2020 thatkilled Iranian top commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi PMF leader AbuMahdi al-Muhandis outside Baghdad airport. Iraqi officials at the timecomplained that the US attacks violated their sovereignty.
In the samemonth as the assassination operation, Iraq's parliament passed a non-bindingresolution calling on the government to expel foreign troops from the country.In an extraordinary parliamentary session, parliament urged the government toend all foreign troop presence in Iraq and cancel its request for assistancefrom the US-led Coalition.
While Iraq'sgovernment declares that ISIS is defeated and the coalition's job is over, itremains interested in exploring bilateral relations with coalition members,including military cooperation in training and equipment. However, it alsocontends that the coalition's presence has become a magnet for instability,with near-daily attacks by Iran-backed Islamic Resistance in Iraq on baseshousing coalition forces and escalating US retaliatory strikes.
US and Iraqiofficials acknowledge that the process of reducing foreign troop presence couldtake many months, if not longer, with no imminent withdrawal of US forces.
In January2024, the United States and Iraq held initial talks on the future of US andother foreign troops in the country, with Baghdad expecting discussions to leadto a timeline for reducing their presence. The commission formed for thesetalks investigates the threat posed by ISIS, operational and environmentalrequirements, and the growing capabilities of Iraqi security forces.
Despite theUS stating that the decision to discuss withdrawal from Iraq was made prior toOctober 7, ISIS in Iraq claimed credit for the decision, stating that it"proves that the Americans only understand the language of force" andpromised to continue its attacks.
Currently,there are about 2,500 US troops still deployed in Iraq as part of thecoalition.
While manyIraqis celebrated parliament's resolution, others were displeased with themove.
Warns ofRenewed Threat
Earlier thisweek, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that ISIS attacks in Iraq and Syriaare on track to double in 2024 compared to the previous year, indicating thatthe hardline militant group is trying to rebuild its capabilities.
ISIS claimedresponsibility for 153 attacks in both countries during the first half of 2024,according to CENTCOM. This compares to 121 attacks reported throughout 2023.
"Theincrease in attacks indicates ISIS is attempting to reconstitute followingseveral years of decreased capability," CENTCOM said in a statement.
"Tocontinue the effort to defeat ISIS and prevent its ability to conduct externalattacks, United States Central Command, along with our Defeat ISIS partners,Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces, conducted 196 DefeatISIS Missions, resulting in 44 ISIS operatives killed and 166 detained in thefirst half of 2024. In Iraq, 137 partnered operations resulted in 30 ISISoperatives killed and 74 ISIS operatives detained. In Syria, 59 operationsconducted alongside the SDF and other partners resulted in 14 ISIS operativeskilled and 92 ISIS operatives detained." CENTCOM said.
Americanofficials maintain that ISIS remains a threat in Iraq, albeit less so than inyears past. In its report on ISIS for the fourth quarter of 2023, the USDefense Department's Office of Inspector General described ISIS as"largely contained."
"ISISis still a threat here, much, much diminished, but nevertheless, our work isessentially not done, and we want to ensure that Iraqi forces can continue theenduring defeat of ISIS," US Ambassador to Iraq Alina Romanowski toldReuters in March.
Gen. MichaelKurilla, who heads US Central Command, told Congress the same month that USintelligence estimates there to be around 1,000 ISIS fighters at large in Iraq.
Some suggestthat the American statement regarding ISIS's renewed threat is used as an"excuse" for prolonging their presence in Iraq.
Need orJustification?
The presenceof the International Coalition forces in Iraq, according to Talib Al-Yasari, amember of the Parliamentary Security and Defense Committee, depends on"the need of the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Interior, and otherconcerned agencies for American forces. However, Iraqi security forces arefully prepared and ready."
Speaking toShafaq News Agency, Al-Yasari stated, "The Security and Defense Committeehas posed a question to the Iraqi Minister of Defense, Thabit Al-Abbasi,regarding this matter, and he confirmed that there is a need for theInternational Coalition as advisors for equipment and armament. Currently, weare operating based on need, and this issue is being studied from all angles.Efforts have been ongoing to complete the preparations since 2023 and continueinto the current year, 2024."
Securityexpert Haitham Al-Khazali pointed out, "The Iraqi military and technicalside stated in negotiations between the Iraqi and American governments thatthere is no need for US forces. However, the US argues that its presence inIraq is linked to its forces in Syria and their need for logisticalsupport."
Al-Khazali,speaking to Shafaq News Agency, suggested that "ISIS's reactivation servesas a justification for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq,indicating a clear symbiotic relationship," as he put it.
However,strategic expert Dr. Ahmed Al-Sharifi expressed concerns, stating, "Thereare many factors on the ground that still raise concerns, including thefragility of the borders. Evidence of this is the extensive Turkish incursionswith logistical support lines (land and air), meaning there are bordergaps."
Al-Sharifiadded, in his interview with Shafaq News, "In addition to political crisesand the lack of a unified stance, the parliament plays a direct role insupervising, monitoring, and following up on state institutions, primarily thesecurity and military institutions, has been hindered. The absence of oversightand monitoring in one way or another places them outside the framework ofsupreme supervision (the Constitution). Therefore, many gaps have led, in oneway or another, to the growth of terrorist operations and the re-emergence ofISIS."
Hecontinued, "For some time, there has been talk about a political demandfor the withdrawal of foreign forces, specifically the International Coalitionand the United States, in the absence of a unified national stance. There is nonational consensus demanding the exit of foreign forces. Even those who adoptthis option are subject to regional pressures," considering that thedemand for the departure of the Coalition and the United States is "anIranian demand."
"BorderBreach" Conflict
According toAl-Sharifi, the complex crises and the field situation in Iraq necessitate thecontinued presence of the Coalition and US forces due to the regional conflictthat may involve the "border breach" card.
Al-Sharifiexplained the "border breach" concept, stating, "When ISISentered Iraq, the talk was about breaching borders on the level of terroristgroups. However, after the victory over ISIS and the closure of some bordergaps, we witnessed border breaches through infiltration and drugsmuggling."
He added,"There is also an economic border breach involving dollar smuggling. Therising and fluctuating dollar price is due to economic border breaches, whichdeplete financial resources just as terrorism drained human resources. Althoughterrorist operations have decreased, they have not ended, indicating that thechallenge of terrorism still exists. Along with the border breaches, thenational interest demands the presence of US forces until national capabilitiesare fully developed."
Regardingthe importance of the international coalition's presence, Al-Sharifi providedan example, saying, "Today, a roaming ISIS group was targeted in theHemrin Mountains. This group was tracked by the technical support of theinternational coalition, particularly the United States, where they weremonitored electronically, followed by an airstrike by Iraqi F-16 jets."
He pointedout, "Without electronic surveillance of these groups, they could haveinfiltrated and reached Diyala or even the Baghdad belt, potentially launchingattacks on security and military sectors. Therefore, from an evaluativestandpoint, Iraq still needs the international Coalition and the United States,in addition to being tied to a security alliance ensuring the requirements formanaging regional conflicts."
USCooperation Offers Clout
Strategicexpert Al-Sharifi elaborated on the broader implications of US cooperation,stating, "When discussing the Turkish incursion and Iraq being an ally ofthe United States, Iraq can approach the United Nations Security Council andpotentially secure a favorable decision within hours. However, suppose Iraq hasa hostile relationship with the US and expels the international Coalition andAmerican forces. In that case, its voice will not be heard at the UN and theSecurity Council."
Al-Sharifiemphasized that "cooperation with the US is not limited to military mattersbut extends to political and diplomatic dimensions, leveraging internationalrelations, especially with major powers, to create balance. This includesconsidering Russia's role in Syria and the US's role in Iraq. The politicaldecision-makers in Iraq, if wise, can secure benefits from both Russia and theUS to support sustainable development and build national capacities, includingin armament."
Heconcluded, "Iraq still needs the international coalition and the UnitedStates for security and military reasons, as well as political and diplomaticdimensions."