[ad_1]
Washington’s agreement to end “direct fighting” is a long way from a troop withdrawal. The reality is that America has no intention of pulling out of Iraq anytime soon as it is far too important for its real purpose of containing Iran.
Iraq is a nation steeped in American controversy, embodying the country’s catastrophic obsession with “regime change.” One wonders when America will reduce its contingent and leave the Middle Eastern nation alone. Recently, there has been some hope that they will step down, with the Biden administration appearing to sympathize with growing political sentiment against “Eternal Wars.” Following a visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to Washington, Washington and Baghdad, an agreement was signed to “end” the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of this year. But, as always with the US military intervention, many questions remain.
The devil, of course, is in the details. The title sounds good, but in reality, American forces will not leave the country. They simply stop “fighting” ISIS directly and “stay” in an advisory capacity. The White House declined to comment on possible “troop withdrawals.” If it wasn’t obvious, the Iraqi government has wanted America for a long time and its parliament even passed a motion to that effect after the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last year, but Washington refused to budge, Trump pushing threats of sanctions. But it’s not like they’ve already been invited in the first place. One has to ask, therefore, does this agreement really mean anything? Are we going to continue to pretend that ISIS is the real reason America is here? And given that the United States willingly uses its own capabilities in Iraq to attack Iranian targets at will, what changes here?
Anyone who claims that America’s persistent and unwanted presence in Iraq is an act of selflessness and benevolence dedicated solely to the fight against terrorism is wrong. The 30-year history of his contemporary role in the country which involved two wars, the last an illegal invasion, clearly suggests otherwise. The existing facade that they are there to “defeat ISIS” is a distraction, especially when the rise of ISIS was a consequence of the US intervention in the country in the first place. The real reason the United States is there is simply to contain Iran.
Anyone who knows Middle East politics in detail will see that Iran does not exercise a “malevolent influence” over Iraq, these two countries have a natural affinity for each other and they are both nations. majority Shia Muslims and are linked by history. It is ironic of the United States that when Saddam Hussein was in Baghdad he led a Sunni minority dictatorship that sought to downplay bigotry by wielding secular Arabizing nationalism. He even went to the desperate length of going to war with Iran to thwart the influence of the Islamic revolution on his country after 1979.
This reveals the biggest problem with what America has done to Iraq, underscoring its stupid approach to rejection and its obsession with getting the best of both worlds. By illegally invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam’s Baathist regime and striving to build a utopian democratic project in its image, Washington has offered control of the country to the Shiite majority. They naturally choose to pursue a closer sectarian and economic relationship with Iran. This sparked a religious conflict, triggering the rise of ISIS out of Al Qaeda, as disgruntled Sunni resistance forces found ground in the country’s poorer north. Iraq remains a chronically unstable country and America is part of the problem.
Yet despite the sectarian strife and instability that continue to put Iraq in turmoil, Sunnis and Shiites are united in their wish that the United States simply go. Only the Northern Kurds, who see the American presence as a means of ensuring their autonomy, want the Americans to stay. Their presence in Iraq is an occupation that the sovereign government has no way of overthrowing. It dwells on it not because its mission is to defeat terrorism, but because the United States wants to retain an unlimited right to bomb Iranian targets.
This is an unfair arrangement, with Washington believing it has more of a right to be an intrusive presence in Baghdad than Tehran itself. What we see here is a face-saving deal to complement an Iraqi prime minister who suffers from widespread anti-American pressure and frequent social unrest. But there is no substance to the deal, the United States is not really committing to anything, only saying that it will stop fighting a long-defeated terrorist force. This is not an exit, it is simply a facade and does not change the reality that the United States maintains an unwanted presence in Iraq and will continue to use it as it sees fit.
Biden talks about withdrawing from various conflicts in the Middle East, but there are serious questions as to whether his words will be backed up with action? So far, it’s just an empty ringtone.
Source link
