The hidden motive behind the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

"The withdrawal of US troops from several military bases is not in line with the Iraqi parliamentary resolution urging the government in Baghdad to expel foreign forces from the country. It is rather part of the plans to redeploy US troops within Iraq," Karim Al-Muhamadawi, a member of the Security and Defence Committee of the Iraqi Parliament, recently condemned. This politician assures, in the same vein, that, with these latest strategic movements led by the Pentagon, including the transfer of military bases to the Iraqi Armed Forces, Washington is attempting to increase its offensive effectiveness and intensify its actions against pro-Iranian Iraqi militias, such as the People's Mobilisation Forces (PMF), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi, and its affiliates.

Over the last few weeks, the International Coalition against Daesh, led by the Americans, has announced its departure from several military installations located in Iraqi territory: Al-Qaim, near the border with Syria; Qayyard Airfield West, near Mosul; K-1 in Kirkuk; Al Taqaddum (TQ), in the province of Al-Anbar; and the barracks of Nineveh, in the north of the country. The U.S. State Department has always recognized that these actions have been planned "for a long time in coordination with the Government of Iraq", and that they are not related "to the recent attacks on the Iraqi bases that house Coalition troops or to the current situation of COVID-19," according to a note issued by the Alliance this weekend. 

However, there are several indications as to why the Iraqi parliamentarian has criticised the relocation of troops. First, the US promised to respond "appropriately" to any offensive against its interests. This was assured by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after the death of two nationals in an attack on the Taji base last March 12. "We will not tolerate any attack or threat to the lives of Americans," the official reiterated, who also urged the Iraqi authorities to "defend the Coalition troops," leaving it implicit that if Baghdad did not do so, Washington would assume, "legitimately," the authorization to protect its soldiers, even with counteroffensives. 

The situation could become even more tense after the attacks that took place this Monday against the installations of the US oil company Halliburton, located in the south of Iraq. Although there have not been any victims or material damages that have affected the operation of the company, because the rockets did not manage to hit their targets, it is foreseeable that the US will interpret it as a hostile act against its interests, and even more so when it comes to crude oil, which is very much coveted by the White House. Furthermore, as explained by Al-Monitor, this incident has been "the first to attack the oil infrastructure since last June when a rocket hit a complex housing international oil companies, including the US energy giant ExxonMobil, and injured three Iraqi employees", which reflects the extent to which tensions are escalating.

Second, another indication that would point to hidden motives behind the US troop reorganisation plan is the plans that have come to light regarding the construction of a new military base in the west of the country, specifically in the area of Umm Samikh in the province of Al-Anbar, near the Syrian border. It is also planned that air defence systems of the Patriot model, the flagship of US defence, will be installed there.

The objective, according to a local security source Al-Ahad, is to protect the base of Al-Asad and other interests of the Americans in Iraqi territory against possible new attacks from Iran or its Iraqi militias, the PMFs, which fits with the theory of increasing attack capabilities against these groups outlined at the beginning of this analysis. "The United States is moving defensive systems into Iraq to protect coalition members and U.S. services from various air threats over Iraqi bases housing coalition troops," Pentagon spokesman Sean Robertson said at the time. "It is important to note that the repeated attacks on Iraqi bases, which violate Iraqi sovereignty, have killed and injured Iraqis, coalition members and members of the US services," he reiterated.

On this matter, the Islamic Republic condemned last week that the US is leading the Middle East to disaster with its belligerent attitude, at a critical moment for the region and the whole world with the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis. In a note published by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it assured that the deployment of Patriot systems goes "against the official position of the Iraqi Government, Parliament and people". The communiqué also called for an end to "warmongering during the coronavirus outbreak" and warned that American military activities in the region could lead to "instability and disaster" and that the USA should "respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and government and leave the country". So, tensions are also escalating on a dialectical level.

Thirdly and finally, the appearance on the scene of a new pro-Iranian Shiite Iraqi militia could also be considered as a sign, which could undoubtedly pose a threat to the Americans in Iraq. Although few facts are yet known, they call themselves the Revolutionary League or Usbat al-Thairen. Their first public appearance took place on March 15, three days after the attack on Taji. Through a video, they claimed responsibility for this offensive and issued new warnings against American soldiers deployed in Iraq. "This operation is only the beginning and the end is yet to come," they said. 

The Pentagon has yet to make a statement on this militia, which has already been considered a serious mistake by some experts in the field, because "it is risky to ignore the potential of another new group that has problems with the U.S. occupation and about which virtually nothing is known," according to analyst Jason Ditz in Antiwar. Although the official position is one of absolute silence, the reorganisation of troops and the construction of a base in the west of the country could also mean that the US is preparing to face this new threat, in an offensive way and even through preventive defence operations, which, again, would fit in with the theory of the Iraqi parliamentarian.