The Pentagon has just released one of those news stories that smells like the end of a cycle: the military presence in Iraq , which has marked the rhythm of life in the Mesopotamian country for more than twenty years, is starting to pack its bags. According to the official statement, neat and neatly packaged for a photo, the decision is a response to "joint success" in the fight against the Islamic State. A story that speaks of a transition toward a "lasting security alliance," which on paper sounds like it will strengthen the Iraqi economy and its role in the region. A marvel, almost a fairy tale for kids.
military presence in Iraq
However, when one deviates a little from the script and begins to connect the dots, the story becomes considerably murkier. The withdrawal, marketed as an achievement, comes after years of pressure that became unsustainable for US troops, who had become a favorite target of local militias, many of them clearly patronized by Iran. So the question that lingers in the air is inevitable: are they leaving because they won, or because staying had become too expensive, dangerous, and a job with no clear future?
The official discourse and the reality of rocket fire
On the one hand, the official version insists that the troop reduction "reflects our success" and seeks to open a new stage of cooperation. There is talk of pinpoint coordination with the Baghdad government to ensure the transition is "responsible" and orderly. All very diplomatic, very thorough. But, on the other hand, this announcement didn't come out of nowhere. It's been a year since Washington and Baghdad had put a timeline on the table to close the international coalition's mission, with September 2025 as the deadline on the horizon. In fact, an Iraqi ministerial advisor, Hussein Allawi, had recently dropped the ball: the maneuver would be completed much sooner, perhaps next month. This suggests that the move is more of an agenda agreed upon under pressure than a spontaneous decision driven by a landslide victory.
The truth is that the military presence in Iraq had become a burning nail. Since the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a US bombing at Baghdad airport in 2020, the situation for his troops has turned into hell. The Iraqi parliament even voted a resolution demanding his expulsion, and the coalition's bases have been a bonanza of rockets and drones launched by Shiite militias that answer directly to Tehran. In this context, the withdrawal looks more like a move to decompress and avoid a bigger mess than a medal for a job well done. In Creole: it's getting a problem off your back.
Chasing the Cat's Fifth Leg: Real Success or Half-Truth?
Selling the withdrawal as a triumph for having dismantled the Islamic State is, to be generous, a half-truth. While it's true that the "caliphate" that sowed terror between 2014 and 2017 no longer exists as a territorial entity, the jihadist organization is far from being wiped off the map. It mutated, it adapted. Today, it operates as a decentralized insurgency, with sleeper cells that continue to do their thing, perpetrating attacks and keeping Iraqi security forces in check. To say the war was won is to ignore the fact that the enemy simply changed tactics, as it always has.
Likewise, the factor that the official statement barely mentions, but which is the real elephant in the room, is the wear and tear of more than 20 years of occupation. The 2003 invasion, justified with the excuse of weapons of mass destruction that never appeared, left a country in tatters, with weak institutions and chronic distrust of any foreign boot. The promise of democracy and stability vanished long ago, leaving a trail of sectarian violence, corruption, and a dizzying black hole of cash. All that money, how many problems could it have solved at home? How many plates of food, how much yerba mate, bread, and milk for people who can't make ends meet? Maintaining an occupation force in that scenario is a bottomless pit, both in terms of resources and human lives. [INTERNAL_LINK]
Iraq's Future: A Partner or a Board with New Rules?
The big question now is what the hell this "lasting security alliance" means in practice. The papers can endure anything, but the reality on the ground is often much harsher. Often, a withdrawal of "combat troops" translates into their replacement by military "advisors," private contractors performing security duties, and an increase in drone operations. In other words, a military presence in Iraq . The war changes its face, but it doesn't always end.
The main risk, which all analysts point to, is the power vacuum. The million-dollar question is: are the Iraqi armed forces, trained for years by the coalition, really ready to take full control of the bridge? Recent history shows that their capacity is, at best, patchy. This vacuum could be exploited by two actors:
- The remnants of the Islamic State, who might see an opportunity to regroup and return to the fray.
- Pro-Iranian militias, which is the most likely option, to consolidate their power and influence within the Iraqi state apparatus itself.
In this latter scenario, Iraq would go from being a multiplayer chessboard to one almost entirely dominated by Tehran's interests. A significant fact is that, while the military presence in Iraq , operations in neighboring Syria will continue until September 2026. This difference in strategy highlights that the decision on Iraq responds to specific political dynamics and local pressures, and not to a supposed regional victory against terrorism. In Syria, where Bashar al-Assad's government is a partner of Iran and Russia, the United States is holding its own. In Iraq, where the balance is more fragile and anti-US pressure is much greater, they seem to have decided it's time to strike. [INTERNAL_LINK]
Ultimately, the announcement of the US withdrawal closes a long, bloody, and expensive chapter. For Washington, it's a way to turn the page on one of its most controversial and frustrating wars. For ordinary Iraqis, however, the future remains a blur. After decades of invasions, occupations, and civil wars, ordinary people only hope for a bit of peace, the possibility of decent work and a normal life. Whether this withdrawal will bring them that longed-for respite or simply open the door to a new kind of conflict, only time will tell.
