Follow us on social


The Unhappy U.S. Occupation of Iraq

The biggest impediment to any resurgence of ISIS in Iraq would be good governance and stability in Iraqi politics. U.S. troops are not contributing to those goals.

Analysis | Middle East

Remember how the George W. Bush administration sold its offensive war in Iraq, begun seventeen years ago? It wasn’t just about weapons of mass destruction and mythical alliances with terrorist groups. The war was also supposed to bring the blessings of freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq, who would be grateful to the United States for overthrowing their dictator. The war was to be not just a pursuit of American objectives in opposition to Iraqi ones but an altruistic action for the benefit of Iraqis.

Whatever gratitude Iraqis felt, however, was soon overshadowed by more negative sentiments. American forces were met less with flowers and sweets than with a multi-faceted insurgency. That insurgency encompassed a sectarian civil war that the U.S. invasion unleashed as well as armed opposition to what many Iraqis regarded as a foreign military occupation.

Today, two U.S. administrations later, it is clearer than ever that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is in fact an occupation. Although the Trump administration still uses rhetoric about helping the Iraqi people, it is actively opposing what has become the dominant Iraqi sentiment, as expressed by the Iraqi government and parliament, that U.S. troops should leave. President Trump has gone so far as to threaten Iraq with sanctions if it does not acquiesce in the continued presence of U.S. troops on its soil. The administration has moved to make good on that threat by warning Iraq that it will shut down the Iraqi central bank’s access to its account with the Federal Reserve if Baghdad continues calling for the departure of U.S. forces.

Foreign military occupations are mostly bad, and it is generally bad for the United States to be an occupier. There are, at a minimum, the direct costs of maintaining such a presence in a foreign land. U.S. troops also can become targets of unfriendly foreign powers — a vulnerability that last week’s Iranian missile attacks against U.S.-inhabited military bases in Iraq underscored. At least as likely is violent opposition from indigenous elements opposed to foreign occupation. Finally, such arrangements send an unhelpful message to other nations about how the United States runs roughshod over the wishes and interests of countries it claims to be helping.

U.S. troops ostensibly are still in Iraq to help combat ISIS. But since the recent escalation of the U.S. confrontation with Iran, such help has not been happening. Anti-ISIS operations have been suspended and U.S. troops have been hunkering down to protect themselves.

To impose an anti-ISIS U.S. troop presence against the will of a reluctant Iraqi government ignores how any re-emergence of an ISIS mini-state would be more of a threat to Iraq than to the United States. This is not a situation in which dangers specific to the United States must override the sentiments and interests of a local partner. For ISIS, building and maintaining a so-called caliphate in the Middle East has been more of an alternative to overseas terrorist operations than a complement to such operations. The biggest impediment to any resurgence of ISIS in Iraq would be good governance and stability in Iraqi politics. U.S. troops are not contributing to those goals. Instead, by making Iraq into an arena for battling Iran, the U.S. presence fuels the sorts of instability and sectarian tensions that make Iraq a more favorable playing field for ISIS. Moreover, resistance to foreign occupation has traditionally been one of the chief motivations for terrorism.

The administration’s current stubborn insistence on keeping American troops in Iraq exhibits several damaging patterns of thought.

It shows that much of the mindset that led to the Iraq War — probably the most misguided and damaging U.S. foray in the Middle East ever — has not yet dissipated, despite the enormous costs and failures of that war.

It exhibits arrogance of power, with apparent blindness to how resentful reactions to some exercises of that power redound to the disadvantage of the United States.

It mistakenly equates U.S. influence with a U.S. military presence.

It entails misunderstanding of the sources of terrorist threats and what is required to diminish those threats.

It is another example of how the administration’s obsession with promoting conflict with Iran leads it to ignore or misunderstand many realities of importance to U.S. interests. In this case, what is most ignored is the complex nature of Iraqi-Iranian relations. Both sides want a stable and even cordial relationship because neither side wants a repeat of their very destructive war in the 1980s. But Iraqis don’t want Iranian domination any more than they want American domination.

Iraqi nationalism is the most effective check on Iranian influence on Iraq — if only the United States does not mess up this dynamic with actions that turn that nationalist sentiment against itself. The Bush administration messed up with its invasion in 2003, and the Trump administration has messed up with its lethal attacks on Iraqi militias and its assassination of Qassem Soleimani and a senior Iraqi security figure.

For all these reasons, the U.S. occupation of Iraq should end, and the American troops there should come home.

Analysis | Middle East
US flouts international law with Pacific military claims
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) transits the Pacific Ocean Jan. 25, 2020. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Alexander Williams)

US flouts international law with Pacific military claims


In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.

Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States.

keep readingShow less
Not leaving empty handed: Zelensky gets his ATACMs
President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden greet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mrs. Olena Zelenska of Ukraine at the South Portico of the White House. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto)

Not leaving empty handed: Zelensky gets his ATACMs


So it looks like Ukrainian President Zelensky did not leave Washington empty handed this week after all. According to reports this afternoon, the Biden administration has relented and will transfer long range ATACMs, long considered too escalatory for the conflict, to Ukraine in the “upcoming weeks,” according to POLITICO.

The ATACMs variant that the U.S. is reportedly considering, according to the Washington Post (which, unlike POLITICO says the administration is "nearing an announcement") uses controversial cluster munitions, another old "red line" for the administration in this war, instead of a single warhead. This is not exactly what the Ukrainians had hoped for.

keep readingShow less
Wall Street Journal

Editorial credit: monticello /

WSJ conceals Saudi funding of pro-Saudi nuke deal source


The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “Israeli officials are quietly working with the Biden administration on a polarizing proposal to set up a U.S.-run uranium-enrichment operation in Saudi Arabia as part of a complex three-way deal to establish official diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern countries,” according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

The article, authored by Dion Nissenbaum and Dov Lieber, largely showcases Israeli opposition to the deal. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group whose mission includes providing “education to enhance Israel’s image in North America…” was quoted opposing a uranium enrichment program on Saudi soil. He warned that “we’re one bullet away from a disaster in Saudi Arabia,” adding, “What happens if, God forbid, a radical Islamist leader takes control?”

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis