Withdrawing US Troops from Iraq: When and How

Amid all the talk among presidential candidates on whether they would pull US troops out of Iraq, the actual UN authorization, which allows our troops to be there legally, expires on December 31, 2008. Without a new agreement before that expiration date, US troops will be legally bound to withdraw. Of course, everyone expects a new agreement to be reached between US and Iraqi negotiators and that US troops will remain in Iraq for years. In fact, the new agreement has been reached already between negotiators, though not yet ratified. The new agreement, as reported by Reuters, would have US troops in Iraq for 3 more years subject to an annual review. It would also require the US to stop its Iraqi street patrols in about 9 to 12 months from today. Observers will note that many US casualties are the result of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks or other ambushes upon these US street patrols.

The Iraqi Parliament must Approve the US Troops Presence

The agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament in order to take effect. That approval is not at all assured. As we know, Iraq is a democracy, with parliament members serving at the will of the people, much like our own Congress. However, the Iraqi parliament members must be acutely aware that their actions are being watched by powerful people on all sides of the issue, and furthermore, once the US does pull out, whether it's tomorrow or in three years, these parliament members will be left to the machinations of these internal Iraqi groups, and subject to voter approval for their jobs.

The Dirty Secret of the Surge's Success

As a stark reminder to parliament and the Iraqi people, supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr numbering in the thousands were marching in protest through the streets of Baghdad on Saturday urging lawmakers to scrap the agreement and take back Iraq from foreign occupiers. Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of the armed militias that provided some of the strongest resistance to US and Iraqi troops after the fall of the Sadam Hussein regime, but seeing that it was impossible to defeat the US militarily, Moqtada al-Sadr called a unilateral cease-fire in August of 2007 and went into hiding. A good reminder of the situation at the time can be read in the UK's Guardian. Today's demonstrations, however, show that he still has strong influence among his supporters. The start of that cease-fire and the voluntary withdrawal of al-Sadr's forces from military action of any sort coincided pretty closely with the decline of violence in Iraq. Although many give credit to the US military surge program for the increased safety in Iraq, one certainly must ask how long the current lull would last if Muqtada al-Sadr ended his cease-fire tomorrow.

What Happens in Iraq When the US Leaves?

So, what happens when the US eventually leaves Iraq? To me the most likely scenario involves Muqtada al-Sadr returning and reasserting active authority over his militia, known as the Mahdi Army. Furthermore, he, or a surrogate, may run for office. With the threat or use of his militia, his popularity among the Shia religious groups in Iraq, possible funding from Iran, and his populist message, there is a very good chance that he would succeed. If he doesn't, he would certainly be able to throw the country back into turmoil. Would the US have the stomach to send troops back to Iraq after having fully withdrawn? That might be a pretty hard sell with both the American people and the American Congress.

Iraq Under Muqtada al-Sadr's Rule

If Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia cleric, takes power in Iraq, we would certainly see a strong effort to return the country to strict Islamic law. We would also likely see a much stronger political affiliation with Iran. Together the two would exert tremendous religious, political, and even military influence on neighboring states. Make no mistake about it, Nouri al-Maliki, the current Iraqi Prime Minister would not be in office today without the backing of US troops all throughout Iraq. Currently, I do not believe his regime is strong enough to survive the complete withdrawal of US forces. Faced with calls from US politicians to remove those US troops, he is trying to appear less pro-American to the Iraqi people in hopes of blunting Muqtada al-Sadr's calls for an Iraqi government that is not subservient to a foreign power.

If the US withdraws its troops too precipitously, Iran will, without a doubt devolve into chaos. There are many players who would profit from that chaos, not least conservative religious groups like the Taliban, aggressive Middle Eastern neighbors like Iran, and would-be oil monopolists like Russia. The one country that would certainly not gain from Iranian chaos would be the only force that is preventing it today, the United States of America.

The Path for US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

Don't get me wrong, the US can and should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within six months without triggering this chaos. As the Iraqi forces come up to speed in handling their own internal security affairs, we will need to handle less and less of that action. However, we must maintain a force in Iraq that is strong enough to protect itself from all threats, and strong enough to reinforce the message that the United States will, if pushed too far, respond to any and all aggression against the government and the people of Iraq. The Iraqi people will support the al-Maliki government as long as it remains safe for them and their families to do so. Without the real and perceived security afforded by the presence of US troops in Iraq, that protection becomes much less certain, and visible and vocal opposition of Muqtada al-Sadr, even among government officials, will disappear as quickly as water spilled in the desert sands.

The Top Remaining Military Objective in Iraq

Going into Iraq has, without a doubt, weakened America's security, but leaving the country to the forces of chaos will make the problem worse. Draw down our troops, but leave a strong enough force in place to preserve the current stability. At the first sign of renewed aggression from Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, send in enough forces to crush him utterly. Muqtada al-Sadr, himself, must be captured and tried by the Iraqi government, and not by the US, to demonstrate that the Iraqi government is the dominant force within the country. Furthermore, sufficient US troops must be on hand when and if that trial occurs to quell the certain eruption of violence from al-Sadr's militia supporters. In fact, that uprising and the capture of al-Sadr would be the perfect pretext to defeat, once and for all, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and to firmly put Iraqi on the path toward peace and self-rule.

Sources:

reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLI497299._CH_.2400

guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/29/iraq.usa