Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1512330626-scaled

The Recent U.S. Attack on an Iraqi Militia Only Further Entrenches the U.S. Military in the Middle East

The consequences of the U.S. attack on Iraqi Shiite militia group Kataib Hezbollah far outweigh whatever short sighted benefits the Trump administration is claiming.

Analysis | Global Crises

On December 29, 2019 a group of U.S. F-15E fighters attacked five facilities controlled by the Shiite militia group, Kataib Hezbollah, in Iraq and Syria. In addition to the destruction of five weapons and munitions depots, and command and control locations, these attacks killed 25 Iraqis, including at least four militia commanders and the wounding of at least 55 others. The Trump administration argues that these attacks were not only an appropriate response to the attack by the group, which the U.S. contends is an Iranian proxy, on an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four American troops and two Iraqis. Moreover, the U.S. says, it will degrade the group’s ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces in the region.

Even if one accepts the administration’s rationale for the American response, the incident should raise a number of concerns. First, why does the U.S. still have approximately 5,000 troops plus an unknown number of private contractors in Iraq nearly seventeen years after our invasion? It is important to remember that because of the demands of the Iraqi government — of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, whom the U.S. installed — the Bush administration agreed in 2008 to withdraw all American troops from the country by the end of 2011, an arrangement the Obama administration implemented. U.S. forces returned in 2014, at the request of the Iraqi government, to combat ISIS, which was decimating the U.S.-trained Iraqi military and had taken control of one-third of the country. But, after the defeat of ISIS the rationale has changed. According to the Trump administration, the U.S. remains there to combat influence on the Iraqi military by Iranian militias, many of whom we cooperated with to defeat ISIS. Second, if our attack in Iraq was a response to an assault on that country by a foreign power, why was the U.S. attack on December 29, 2019, unanimously and publicly condemned by all the Iraqi leaders, including the president, the prime minister, the foreign minister, the Fatih Alliance — the second largest group in the Iraqi Parliament — and the top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani? Iraqi President Barham Salih actually went so far as to call it an aggressive action and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi of the attack ahead of time, the prime minister asked him to call it off, and then publicly condemned it, calling it an unspeakable, vicious assault that will have dangerous consequences. How can we claim to be in Iraq to protect their democracy when we are obviously violating their sovereignty?

Third, what comes next? The Pentagon claims that its precision defensive strikes will degrade

the militia group’s ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces, while Pompeo calls it a decisive response to Iran. What happens if the strike does not degrade the militia’s capabilities? Will the U.S. be prepared to attack Iran, which it claims is responsible for the attacks on U.S. personnel? And do we want a war with Iran while the Pentagon is preparing to shift our forces from the Middle East to combat what it sees as the primary threat to our security, our strategic competitors, Russia and China? Moreover, is any of this even legal? Is our continued presence in Iraq still justified by the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, or by the 2002 Congressional vote to support the invasion of Iraq? Is it time to ask Congress to vote on our continued deployment in Iraq?

Fourth, how will the U.S. attacks impact events in Iraq where there is already turmoil? Mass demonstrations there have resulted in the deaths of approximately 500 anti-government protestors, who, among other things, were condemning militias like Kataib Hezbollah and their Iranian backers. Now, they’ve turned their ire on the United States because of the attack, with anti-American slogans replacing anti-Iranian ones and with calls for an end to the American occupation, including an attack on the American embassy.

As the U.S. considers what its next steps should be, it should reflect on the unintended consequences of its mindless, needless, senseless invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and its current maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Not only did the invasion lead to the establishment of ISIS, but it also increased the influence of Iran in the county and in the region, a situation we are dealing with today. And, our maximum pressure campaign against Iran has led to the increasing influence of China and Russia in the region, as demonstrated by their recent naval exercises with Iran. Finally, these attacks have strengthened Iran’s influence in the region by undermining our relations with Iraq.

Analysis | Global Crises
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less
Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

A tugboat tows a barge loaded with humanitarian aid for Gaza, as seen from Larnaca, Cyprus, March 30, 2024. REUTERS/Yiannis Kourtoglou

Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

Middle East

As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens, a small U.S.-based advisory group hopes to build a temporary port that could bring as many as 200 truckloads of aid into the besieged strip each day, more than doubling the average daily flow of aid, according to a person with detailed knowledge of the maritime corridor plan.

The port effort, led by a firm called Fogbow, could start bringing aid into Gaza from Cyprus within 28 days of receiving the necessary funding from international donors. The project would require $30 million to get started, followed by an additional $30 million each month to continue operations, according to the source.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest