This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraq-says-it-has-been-informed-by-the-us-military-that-troops-will-be-withdrawn/2020/01/07/0e164b46-30d3-11ea-971b-43bec3ff9860_story.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Iraq says U.S. military letter was ‘clear’: American troops are leaving Trump administration insists U.S. troops will remain in Iraq
(about 3 hours later)
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government has interpreted a letter delivered by the U.S. military advising of a “repositioning” of U.S. forces as a signal of an intent to withdraw, Iraqi officials said Tuesday, even as the Pentagon strenuously denied that any decision has been made to pull out of the country that has embroiled the U.S. military in conflict for most of the past 30 years. “At some point, we want to get out,” Trump said. “But this isn’t the right point.”
The letter delivered to the office of Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, on Monday cited “deference” to a vote in the Iraqi parliament calling on all foreign forces to leave by way of explaining an expected increase in U.S. helicopter activity over the Baghdad airport in the “coming days and weeks.” The comments came amid signs that the U.S. military presence is growing increasingly untenable, at least in its current form, in the fallout from the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani in a U.S. military drone strike last week.
The U.S. military wants “to ensure that the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner,” the letter said. “It’s a hostile environment,” said Sajad Jiyad, who heads the Al-Bayan Center think tank in Baghdad. “They are potentially not wanted, the costs are high, and the risks are high.”
Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the letter a “mistake” and a “poorly worded” draft. U.S. military officials said such letters are routine, intended to keep their Iraqi counterparts abreast of intended U.S. troop movements to avoid misunderstandings. After days of threatening revenge, Iranian forces launched more than a dozen missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq on Tuesday night in a dramatic escalation of tensions.
Once a policy afterthought, Iraq becomes a problem for Trump administration Live updates
But it had become clear that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is growing increasingly untenable, at least in its current form, in the wake of the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week, which drew threats of retaliation from Iran and its regional allies against U.S. troops in Iraq and beyond. “It is clear these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel,” the Pentagon said in a statement.
“It’s a hostile environment,” said Sajad Jiyad, who heads the Bayan Center think tank in Baghdad. “They are potentially not wanted, the costs are high, and the risks are high.” The attacks came as U.S. officials continued to defend killing Soleimani as a response to months of increased Iranian aggression toward Americans in Iraq. They pointed to his role in directing operations that have left hundreds of U.S. troops dead over the past 20 years.
In comments to the Iraqi cabinet, broadcast on state television, Abdul Mahdi expressed exasperation with the conflicting signals coming from Washington. The letter he received “was clear,” he said, in its reference to a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The chaos has been highlighted by the reaction in Baghdad to a letter sent by a senior U.S. commander to Iraqi officials Monday. The document suggested that the United States may be preparing to withdraw its troops. Marine Brig. Gen. William H. Seely III wrote that Americans would be using helicopters to reposition U.S. forces “for onward movement” and were required to take “certain measures to ensure that the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner.”
“It’s not like a draft or a paper that fell out of the photocopier and coincidentally came to us,” he told the cabinet. Iraqi officials said Tuesday that they are interpreting the letter as notification that U.S. troops will leave. Acting prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said the document “was clear” and expressed exasperation with conflicting U.S. signals.
Two Iraqi officials said the caretaker prime minister had read the letter as a signal of a U.S. intent to withdraw and concluded that it was necessary in light of the spiraling tensions between the United States and Iran, which risk putting Iraq in the middle of a new war. “It’s not like a draft, or a paper that fell out of the photocopier and coincidentally came to us,” Mahdi told the Iraqi cabinet in comments on state television.
In Abdul Mahdi’s view, “there is no way to ensure the stability of Iraq without the withdrawal of foreign forces,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss a sensitive subject. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, speaking at the Pentagon, dismissed the letter as “a draft” that “has no value,” and he insinuated that its release to the public in Iraq may have had ulterior motives.
“We won against ISIS,” he said, referring to the Islamic State by another name. “Having them [the U.S.] here now complicates things more.” “There may be people trying to create confusion,” he said. “Our policy has not changed.”
The copy of the letter, which was obtained by Iraqi media outlets and then widely circulated, was not signed by Brig. Gen. William H. Seely III, the apparent author, Pentagon officials have noted. The first news outlet to publicize the letter was the television station belonging to the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, whose leader, Qais al-Khazali, is designated a terrorist by the United States. Esper, when asked whether a signed copy had been sent to the Iraqis, said not “to the best of my knowledge.”
Abdul Mahdi said the copy of the letter he received did bear a signature, and he is dismissing the Pentagon denials, the official said. “As a state, we deal with the official letters that we receive, and we will act in accordance with this letter,” the official quoted the Iraqi leader as saying. But Iraqi officials said the Americans sent them the letter not once, but twice, because of an error in how it was initially translated. U.S. military officials confirmed the letter was genuine, and one said that a version sent to Iraqi officials was signed.
Abdul Mahdi has asked the United States to put in place a timeline for a withdrawal, the official said. The military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the letter was intended to convey to Iraqi officials that the U.S. military would take reasonable steps following the killing of Soleimani, including pulling troops back to fewer bases. Such a move would make it easier to protect them, as well as easier to withdraw if required.
Europeans shift troops from Iraq, warn fight against Islamic State is imperiled because of U.S. actions The official said it is unclear why the letter was released, but “we must ensure that our candid correspondence with our Iraqi partners remains fluid and factual.”
The furor over the letter came as U.S. allies in Iraq began to evacuate their troops in the wake of the parliament vote on Sunday and threats against U.S. forces. The German government said all of the 100 or so of its troops who had been based outside Iraq’s Kurdistan region had been relocated to Kuwait or Jordan. Canada said it would be withdrawing 500 troops from Iraq. The U.S.-led military coalition in Baghdad referred questions about the letter to the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations across the Middle East. Officials there did not respond to several requests for comment.
The future status of the 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was already on the line before a U.S. drone strike killed Soleimani alongside a top Iraqi militia leader early Friday local time outside the Baghdad airport. The Iraqi government has slammed the attack as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and of rules governing the presence of troops dispatched to fight the Islamic State. In Baghdad, two Iraqi officials said Mahdi had concluded that a U.S. troop withdrawal is now necessary in light of the spiraling tensions between the United States and Iran, which risk putting Iraq in the middle of a new war.
An escalating campaign of rocket strikes against U.S. troops hosted on Iraqi bases conducted by Kataib Hezbollah, one of the Iranian-backed militias commanded by Soleimani, had exposed the vulnerability of U.S. personnel in Iraq. After the death of a U.S. contractor in one of those strikes late last month prompted retaliatory U.S. airstrikes against Kataib Hezbollah, Iraqi fears of being caught up in a war between Iran and the United States intensified. In the prime minister’s view, “there is no way to ensure the stability of Iraq without the withdrawal of foreign forces,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue with candor.
Getting U.S. troops out of Iraq might not be that hard, experts say “We won against ISIS,” the official said, referring to the Islamic State militant group. “Having [the U.S.] here now complicates things more.”
For U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, there would have to be guarantees that the United States would cease to use its presence in Iraq to attack Iranian targets, Jiyad said. As it is, he said, it appears to Iraqis as though the United States’ chief purpose in remaining in Iraq is to confront Iran. Senior U.S. officials have continued to defend the strike that killed Soleimani.
The Islamic State would doubtless be emboldened by any U.S. pullout, “but the immediate concern for us in Iraq is, are things going to get worse because the United States is in Iraq?” he asked. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has done the bulk of the administration’s speaking on the subject, said Tuesday that Trump’s advisers “gave him all the best information” they could about the strike on Soleimani before he approved it.
“The possibility of a U.S. escalation with Iran is high; the probability of airstrikes is high. So right now, it looks as if the greater risk comes from the U.S. being in Iraq,” Jiyad said. “It was the right decision, we got it right, the Department of Defense did excellent work and the president had an entirely legal, appropriate . . . basis as well as a decision that fit perfectly within our strategy in how to counter the threat of malign activity from Iran more broadly,” Pompeo said.
There are many in Iraq who would like to salvage the U.S. presence, said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He noted that the vote in parliament was conducted in the absence of Sunni and Kurdish members, by a show of hands that did not provide evidence of overwhelming majority support for a departure of U.S. forces. Esper, who had not appeared on camera to discuss the strike until Tuesday, blamed Iran for its history of attacks over the past 40 years when asked if the United States also has a responsibility to de-escalate tensions between the two countries.
“We reached the point where we had to act in self-defense,” Esper said. “We had to take appropriate action.”
As U.S. officials debated their future in Iraq, some allies began to evacuate their own troops following the parliamentary vote. The German government said the 100 or so troops it had based outside Iraq’s Kurdistan region had been relocated to Kuwait or Jordan. Canada said it would be withdrawing 500 troops from Iraq.
The cascade of events comes after an escalating campaign of rocket strikes against U.S. troops hosted on Iraqi bases carried out by Kataib Hezbollah, one of the Iranian-backed militias commanded by Soleimani. After the death of a U.S. contractor in one of those strikes late last month prompted retaliatory U.S. airstrikes against Kataib Hezbollah, Iraqi fears of being caught up in a war between Iran and the United States intensified.
For U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, there would have to be guarantees that the United States would cease to use its presence in Iraq to attack Iranian targets, Jiyad said. As it is, he said, it appears to Iraqis as though the chief purpose for the United States to remain in Iraq is to confront Iran.
The Islamic State would doubtless be emboldened by any U.S. pullout, “but the immediate concern for us in Iraq is: Are things going to get worse because the United States is in Iraq?” Jiyad asked.
“The possibility of a U.S. escalation with Iran is high, the probability of airstrikes is high, so right now, it looks as if the greater risk comes from the U.S. being in Iraq,” he said.
There are many in Iraq who would like to salvage the U.S. presence, said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. He noted that the vote in parliament was conducted in the absence of Sunni and Kurdish members, by a show of hands that did not provide evidence of overwhelming majority support for a departure of U.S. forces.
There are ways in which the U.S. military could renegotiate the terms of its presence to satisfy Iraqi concerns while also sustaining the goal of combating any revival of the Islamic State, he said. They could include maintaining a low-profile U.S. Special Forces presence to conduct raids against the Islamic State and redefining the U.S. mission as one of providing advice and training to Iraqi forces.There are ways in which the U.S. military could renegotiate the terms of its presence to satisfy Iraqi concerns while also sustaining the goal of combating any revival of the Islamic State, he said. They could include maintaining a low-profile U.S. Special Forces presence to conduct raids against the Islamic State and redefining the U.S. mission as one of providing advice and training to Iraqi forces.
“There’s a lot of middle ground here for military training missions and counterterrorism missions to continue in Iraq if they want to,” he said.“There’s a lot of middle ground here for military training missions and counterterrorism missions to continue in Iraq if they want to,” he said.
But others questioned whether the events of the past week will make it viable for the U.S. troops to remain. mustafa.salim@washpost.com
The vote in the Iraqi parliament “creates dynamics inside the U.S. and Iraq that make a U.S. decision to remove its forces all but inevitable,” wrote Randa Slim in an analysis for the Middle East Institute. Salim reported from Baghdad and Sly reported from Beirut. Louisa Loveluck in Baghdad and Missy Ryan in Washington contributed to this report.
In Baghdad, fears that U.S.-Iran showdowns could leave Iraq caught in middle
Iranians celebrate their favorite cultural sites after Trump threatened to target them
U.S. strikes in Iraq and Syria target Iranian-backed militia, Pentagon says
Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world
Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news