Latest / USA Daily News / U.S. Troops Leave Iraq America’s 23-Year Military Chapter Closes as Militias Refuse to Disarm

Transcript

U.S. Troops Leave Iraq America’s 23-Year Military Chapter Closes as Militias Refuse to Disarm · USA Daily News

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: The final phase of the American military presence in Iraq
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: is now underway, and the departure of the last U.S.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: troops marks a major turning point in a country whose
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: modern history has been deeply shaped by American intervention, withdrawal, insurgency,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: the rise and defeat of the Islamic State, and years
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: of uneasy security cooperation. The United States is on track
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: to complete the withdrawal of its remaining forces from Iraq
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: by September 30th, bringing an extraordinary military chapter to a close.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: The deadline was reaffirmed after Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: met with U.S. Central Command Chief Admiral Brad Cooper, and
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Iraqi officials described September 30 as the final date for
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: ending the military mission of the Global Coalition to defeat
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: ISIS in Iraq and completing the departure of coalition forces.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: The significance of that date reaches far beyond a timetable
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: on a military calendar. It represents the end of a U.S.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: presence that began with the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: continued through years of occupation, insurgency and counterinsurgency, ended formally
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: in 2011, and then returned in a new form after
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: the Islamic State swept across large parts of Iraq in 2014.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: For more than two decades, American troops have been repeatedly
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: drawn into Iraq's security story, first as the dominant military
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: power after the invasion, later as advisors and counterterrorism partners,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: and eventually as part of an international coalition designed to
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: destroy ISIS's territorial organization. Now Washington and Baghdad are preparing
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: for a relationship in which Iraqi forces take primary responsibility
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: for combating terrorist threats inside the country, while U.S. troops
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: leave the remaining positions they have maintained, particularly in the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: northern Kurdish region. The withdrawal comes at a complicated moment.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: The ISIS organization no longer controls the enormous territory it
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: once seized and the coalition's large-scale military operations against the
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: group ended years ago. Iraqi security forces, including federal forces
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: and Kurdish Peshmerga units, have gained significant experience and have
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: been able to conduct counterterrorism operations with less direct coalition involvement.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Yet the departure does not mean that Iraq has become
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: completely free of security risks. The country still faces the
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: possibility of ISIS attacks, political instability, tensions between Baghdad and
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: the Kurdish region, competing armed factions, and the influence of
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: neighboring Iran. Perhaps the most immediate challenge is the future
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: of Iraq's Iran-backed militias, many of which have built their
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: own political, economic, and military.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: Power over the past decade.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has linked the withdrawal of
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: foreign forces to a second deadline. September 30 is also
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: the date by which non-state armed groups are supposed to
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: surrender their weapons to the Iraqi state. That creates an
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: extraordinary political test for Baghdad.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: The U.S.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Military is leaving on a fixed schedule, but the armed
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: groups that have long operated outside the complete control of
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: the central government have shown little enthusiasm for giving up
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: their weapons. Some of the most powerful factions have openly
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: indicated that they do not intend to disarm, arguing that
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: their military capabilities remain necessary for national defense. Their leaders
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: have also historically justified their weapons by pointing to the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: presence of American forces, describing U.S. troops as an occupying
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: force despite the fact that the post. 2014 coalition mission
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: was conducted at the invitation of Iraq's government. With American
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: forces now departing, the political argument used by some militias
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: may become harder to sustain, but the underlying power of
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: those organizations does not automatically disappear. that creates the possibility
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: of a major contradiction. Iraq is attempting to consolidate military
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: authority under the state at the same moment that the
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: United States is reducing its physical presence and regional pressure
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: is rising. The withdrawal therefore represents both an achievement and
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: a test. It demonstrates that Iraq has reached a point
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: at which its security institutions can assume greater responsibility, but
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: it also removes one of the external forces that has
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: sometimes helped balance powerful armed factions. The story is even
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: more complicated because the American military presence has never been
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: a static phenomenon. At the height of the Iraq War,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: More than 170,000 U.S. personnel were deployed in the country
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: during the 2007 counterinsurgency surge. By December 2011, the last U.S.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: combat troops had departed and the formal war.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: Mission had ended.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: But less than three years later, ISIS changed the security
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: equation dramatically. The group captured Mosul and large areas of
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: territory threatened Baghdad and demonstrated that the Iraqi state could
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: not contain the organization on its own. The history behind
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: the U.S. withdrawal explains why the departure carries so much
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: emotional and strategic weight, because America's military presence in Iraq
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: has never been simply one continuous mission. It has moved
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: through several distinct phases, each shaped by a different threat
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: and a different American objective. The original invasion in 2003
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: was launched against Saddam Hussein's government and fundamentally transformed the
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Iraqi state. The years that followed brought a complex mixture
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: of occupation, reconstruction, political transition, sectarian violence, and insurgency. American
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: forces became deeply embedded in Iraq's security architecture, and the
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: conflict demanded enormous resources while producing a heavy human cost.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: By the middle of the decade, the United States had
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: more than 170,000 troops in the country at the height
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: of the counterinsurgency campaign. Thousands of American service members were
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: killed over the course of the war, and the conflict
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: left an enormous physical and political legacy. Iraqi society was
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: also profoundly affected by years of violence. Communities were displaced
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and Institutions were weakened and sectarian divisions became more deeply entrenched.
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: When the final U.S.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Combat troops left in December 2011, Washington presented the withdrawal
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: as the conclusion of the war and for a brief
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: period Iraq moved toward a more independent security posture. Yet
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: the apparent end of the conflict did not mean the
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: end of armed instability. Political tensions, sectarian grievances, and extremist
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: networks remained. The most dramatic challenge emerged in 2014 when
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: ISIS rapidly expanded across northern and western Iraq and Syria.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: The organization captured major cities, seized military equipment, controlled territory,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: and declared a so-called caliphate. Its advance exposed the continuing
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: weaknesses of Iraq's security institutions. Units collapsed and Territory was
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: lost and the Iraqi government appealed for international assistance. The
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: United States returned, but under very different circumstances from 2003.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: This time the mission was not to occupy Iraq or
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: overthrow its government. It was to assist the Iraqi state
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: in defeating a terrorist organization that had captured territory and threatened.
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: The regional order.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: The international coalition that formed around that mission became known
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: as the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. American aircraft conducted airstrikes.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Special operations forces supported Iraqi units and military advisors, helped
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: improve the capabilities of Iraqi forces. Kurdish Peshmerga forces in
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: the north became an important component of the campaign because
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: they were among the groups capable of resisting ISIS when
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: the organization was expanding rapidly. Over time, Iraqi security forces
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: regained territory, Mosul was liberated, and ISIS lost the territorial
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: control that had allowed it to present itself as a
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: state-like organization. The coalition's combat operations in Iraq ended in 2021,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: But the United States remained because Iraqi forces still benefited
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: from American intelligence, training, and counterterrorism support. That residual presence
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: became the foundation of the mission now ending. The distinction
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: between the 2003 invasion and the current departure is therefore essential.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: American troops are leaving a government that is not being overthrown.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: a country whose national institutions continue to function and an
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Iraqi security establishment capable of assuming responsibility for most domestic
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: counterterrorism operations. The move was negotiated rather than imposed through
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: battlefield defeat or sudden political collapse. Washington and Baghdad agreed
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: in 2024 on a phased transition designed to wind down
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: the U.S.-led coalition mission in Iraq. Under the earlier stages,
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: American troops withdrew from bases in much of the country
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: and concentrated their remaining presence in the northern Kurdish region.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: That gradual process was intended to reduce disruption while allowing
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Iraqi security forces to continue developing the capabilities needed for
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: independent operations. Now that process is approaching its final stage.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: The American military is expected to complete the withdrawal by
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: September 30, leaving behind a bilateral relationship that can continue
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: through diplomacy, economic ties, security cooperation, and other forms of
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: engagement without the same troop footprint. That distinction could become
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: one of the defining features of the post-withdrawal era. The
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: end of the military mission does not necessarily mean the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: end of the American relationship with Iraq. Washington still has
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: strategic interests in Iraq's stability, the protection of diplomatic personnel,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the prevention of terrorist resurgence, and the broader balance of
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: power in the Middle East. Iraq also has interests in
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: maintaining a relationship with the United States, particularly in areas
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: such as training, equipment, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic support. The
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: most difficult issue surrounding the American withdrawal may not be
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: the departure of U.S. forces at all, but what happens
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: to the armed groups inside Iraq that have spent years
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: operating with significant autonomy from the central government? Prime Minister
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Ali al-Zaidi has established September 30 as the deadline for
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: non-state armed organizations to surrender their weapons, linking disarmament to
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the end of the foreign military mission. The logic behind
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: that deadline is clear from the government's perspective. If the
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: foreign troops are leaving, then the principal argument used by
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: some militias to justify maintaining independent military capabilities should become weaker.
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: The state should be able to claim a monopoly on
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: legitimate force and armed organizations operating outside government command should
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: eventually become part of official institutions or give up their weapons.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: But transforming that principle into reality is extraordinarily difficult because
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: Iraq's most powerful Iran-backed factions are not small neighborhood militias
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: that can simply be dissolved through an administrative order. Some
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: have substantial personnel, political representation, financial networks, and combat experience.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: They have also developed deep relationships with parts of the
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Iraqi state itself. The Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, emerged
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: as a major military force during the fight against ISIS,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: and many of its constituent groups became formally incorporated into
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Iraq's security architecture. That created an unusual situation in which
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: armed factions could be both inside the state's institutions and
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: politically independent of the government in important ways. The distinction
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: between a state security force and a militia can therefore
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: become blurry. Some factions receive official salaries while maintaining separate
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: command structures. Some hold parliamentary influence while also possessing heavy weapons.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: Some answer ideologically or strategically to Iran even while operating
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: on Iraqi soil under Iraqi legal structures. Disarming such organizations
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: is therefore not simply a law enforcement operation. It is
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: a political struggle over who ultimately controls military power. The
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: September 30th deadline puts that struggle into sharp focus. because
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: the US troop withdrawal removes one of the easiest explanations
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: these militias have used.
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: To justify their existence.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: For years, factions opposed to Washington have argued that American
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: forces represent occupation or foreign interference. They have used the
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: US presence as a rationale for maintaining armed resistance. The
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: current coalition mission, however, was different from the original occupation
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: and was conducted with the Iraqi government's consent to fight ISIS. Still,
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: political narratives often survive even after the circumstances that created
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: them change. Once American troops leave, militia leaders will have
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: to answer a different question. If the foreign forces are gone,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: whom are they preparing to fight and why should they
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: remain armed outside full state control? Their answers could shape
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: Iraqi politics for years. Some factions may argue that weapons
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: are still necessary because Israel, the United States, or other
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: regional actors remain threats. Others may say that Iraq must
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: retain independent deterrence capabilities in case of an external attack.
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: Still others may resist disarmament because weapons provide political leverage
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: and economic power. The government faces the challenge of distinguishing
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: legitimate national defense from private armed authority. If Baghdad moves
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: too aggressively, it could provoke armed confrontation with factions that
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: possess enormous firepower.
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: And political influence.
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: If it moves too slowly, it risks demonstrating that the
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: state cannot enforce its own rules. Either outcome could damage
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: the credibility of the government. The timing makes the situation
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: even more delicate because the region remains unstable. The broader U.S.-Iran
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: conflict has raised tensions across the Middle East, and Iran-backed
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: armed groups in several countries remain active. Iraq's government has
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: already been under pressure to prevent local militias from using
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: Iraqi territory to support other Iran-aligned organizations. Recent accusations involving
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: attacks launched from Iraqi territory have increased the pressure on
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: Baghdad to demonstrate that its borders and military institutions are
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: under effective state control. The issue is therefore not limited
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: to weapons stored inside Iraq. It extends to whether Iraqi
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: territory can be used as part of a broader regional
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: military network. If armed groups can independently launch attacks on
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: foreign targets, Baghdad's sovereignty becomes complicated because neighboring governments may
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: hold the Iraqi state responsible even when Baghdad claims that
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: the groups acted without authorization. That creates diplomatic, economic, and
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: security risks. The situation in northern Iraq makes the withdrawal
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: even more consequential because the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region has been
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: one of the most important remaining locations for U.S.
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: Military activity.
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: And the departure of American personnel from Erbil removes a
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: security presence that Kurdish officials have long regarded as strategically valuable.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: The Kurdistan region has a distinctive political and military relationship
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: with Baghdad. It maintains its own security forces, commonly known
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: as the Peshmerga, and has historically depended on international support
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: to confront extremist threats and protect territory. During the rise
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: of ISIS in 2014, Kurdish forces became one of the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: most visible local partners in the fight against the organization.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: American air power, intelligence, and special operations assistance helped Kurdish
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: forces resist ISIS advances and eventually retake territory. Even after
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: ISIS lost its territorial stronghold, the Kurdish region remained strategically
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: important because of its geography. Northern Iraq is close to Syria,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: Turkey and Iran and its mountains and borders create a
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: complex security environment in which militant organizations can operate. For years,
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: American troops in the region served several functions at once.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: They provided counterterrorism assistance, supported intelligence operations, helped train local forces,
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: and contributed to deterrence against attacks from armed groups.
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: The U.S.
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: Presence also carried political significance because Washington maintained close ties
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: with Kurdish authorities and considered the region an important partner
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: within Iraq. That relationship now has to adapt. Kurdish officials
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: have said that American troop and equipment withdrawals from Erbil
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: began weeks ago, signaling that the transition is not a
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: sudden movement on one day but a process already underway.
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: The physical departure involves personnel, vehicles, military equipment, and support infrastructure,
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: but the strategic consequences are harder to measure. Kurdish leaders
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: have to assess how much their security forces can manage
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: independently and what alternative relationships can provide the capabilities that
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: American forces previously supplied. Iraq's federal government also has an
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: interest in maintaining stability in the Kurdistan region because any
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: security vacuum there could have consequences for the entire country.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: The Kurdish region has its own political disputes, including disagreements
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: between Kurdish parties and continuing tensions with Baghdad over territory,
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: oil revenue, budget transfers, and the status of disputed areas.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Security cooperation can become entangled with those political questions. If
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: Kurdish leaders feel that the federal government cannot protect their
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: interests after American troops leave, they may seek greater autonomy
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: in practice. If Baghdad believes Kurdish forces are operating too independently,
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: tensions could grow. The United States historically provided an additional
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: layer of reassurance between the sides, even when Washington could
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: not resolve their political differences.
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: Its departure reduces that layer.
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: Another concern involves ISIS remnants. Although the organization no longer
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: controls cities and large territory, sleeper cells and small networks
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: can still exploit remote terrain, weak border zones, and political disputes.
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: Counterterrorism officials have repeatedly emphasized that territorial defeat does not
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: necessarily equal ideological or operational elimination. A reduced coalition footprint
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: means Iraqi and Kurdish forces must rely increasingly on their
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: own intelligence and rapid response capabilities. That is not necessarily
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: a sign of weakness. Over years of cooperation, Iraqi and
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: Peshmerga forces have developed their own operational experience. But the
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: withdrawal tests whether those capabilities can sustain the same level
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: of vigilance without U.S. intelligence support and logistical assistance. The
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: challenge becomes especially difficult during periods of regional instability. Northern
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: Iraq has been exposed to cross-border tensions involving Turkey, Iran,
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: Syrian armed groups, and Kurdish militant organizations. American forces sometimes
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: played a role in managing the broader security environment even
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: when their direct mission was focused on ISIS. Once they leave,
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: regional actors may calculate that they have greater freedom of action. Turkey,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: for example, closely monitors militant activity in northern Iraq and
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: has conducted operations across the border. Iran also maintains influence
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: through political and military networks. The Kurdistan region must navigate
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: both powers while maintaining a workable relationship with Baghdad. That
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: diplomatic balance could become more difficult without the United States
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: physically present. There is also an economic dimension. The Kurdish
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: region has experienced financial strains and depends heavily on oil
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: revenues and transfers from Baghdad. For Washington, The withdrawal from
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: Iraq is also part of a broader debate over what
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: American military power should look like in the Middle East
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: after more than two decades of wars, interventions, and counterterrorism operations.
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: The United States entered Iraq in 2003 with an enormous
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: military footprint, and over the years the country became a
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: central theater of American foreign policy. The later return of
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: US troops in 2014 reflected a different strategic problem, as
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: ISIS created an immediate threat to Iraq, neighboring countries, and
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: the wider international system. The coalition eventually succeeded in eliminating
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: the group's territorial control in Iraq, which gave Washington a
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: clear reason to argue that the original mission had been accomplished.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: But maintaining troops indefinitely carries political, financial, and security costs.
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: American personnel remain vulnerable to attacks from armed groups, and U.S.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: bases in Iraq have repeatedly become targets during periods of
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: regional tension. The current withdrawal, therefore, reflects more than a
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: judgment about Iraq itself. It reflects a calculation about where
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: American forces are most needed and what kind of role
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: Washington wants to play in the region. The United States
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: has other priorities competing for military attention, including deterrence against Iran,
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: support for Israel, maritime security, counterterrorism operations, and broader global
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: challenges outside the Middle East. Every troop deployment involves an
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: opportunity cost. Soldiers stationed in Iraq are not available for
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: other missions, and logistical infrastructure built around a long-term deployment
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: requires significant resources. The transition allows Washington to reduce some
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: of those costs while continuing diplomatic and security relationships through
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: other means. Supporters of the withdrawal can argue that this
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: is a logical evolution of the Iraq mission. The country
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: has functioning armed forces, the ISIS territorial threat has been
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: dramatically reduced, and the Iraqi government has requested greater responsibility
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: for its own security. Keeping American troops indefinitely could create
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: dependency and reinforce political narratives that Iraq remains under foreign influence.
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Leaving under an agreed timetable can therefore be seen as
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: a sign of confidence in Iraqi institutions. But critics can
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: point to the continued presence of armed groups and the
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: possibility of an ISIS resurgence as reasons for caution. Terrorist
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: organizations do not need to control cities to create serious problems.
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: Small insurgent cells can conduct ambushes, bombings, and assassinations, particularly
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: when governments face political disputes and security resources are stretched.
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: The challenge for Washington is to determine whether remote support,
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: intelligence cooperation, and rapid response capabilities can substitute for troops
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: physically stationed inside Iraq. The answer may not be immediate.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: It could take years to know whether the transition is sustainable.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: one of the most important variables will be the quality
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: of Iraqi intelligence. Modern counterterrorism operations depend heavily on identifying
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: networks before they can attack, tracking movement across borders, monitoring
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: financial flows, and understanding local political environments. American intelligence capabilities
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: have historically provided Iraq with valuable assistance in those areas.
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: If cooperation continues after the troop withdrawal, the impact may
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: be less dramatic than the physical departure suggests. Iraq could
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: still receive intelligence support and training through bilateral agreements even
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: without permanent U.S.
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: Formations. Another variable is airpower.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: The Iraqi military has developed its own aircraft and strike capabilities,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: but advanced surveillance, targeting, and logistical support can be difficult
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: to replicate without external assistance. If ISIS or another militant
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: organization regains strength, Baghdad may seek additional help from Washington
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: or other partners. The United States could then face a
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: familiar dilemma, how to provide enough support to prevent a
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: terrorist resurgence without becoming permanently re-entangled in Iraq's security affairs.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: That dilemma has shaped American policy for years. Every withdrawal
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: creates concerns about the consequences of leaving, while every continued
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: deployment generates questions about indefinite involvement? The answer is rarely absolute.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: Countries can remain strategically connected without hosting large numbers of
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: foreign troops, but such relationships require trust, institutional stability, and
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: clear rules. The U.S.-Iraq relationship will therefore need to evolve.
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: Washington may emphasize diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation, arms sales, intelligence partnerships,
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: and support for Iraqi institutions rather than direct combat operations.
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: The Iraqi government has an incentive to preserve these connections
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: because American assistance can provide capabilities that would be difficult
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: to replace quickly. The question of whether ISIS can exploit
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: the American withdrawal remains one of the most important security
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: concerns because the organization's territorial defeat should not be confused
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: with complete elimination. The Islamic State lost control of the
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: vast territory it once held in Iraq and Syria, but
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: extremist organizations have historically survived military defeats by adapting their tactics,
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: reducing their visibility and waiting for opportunities created by political instability.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: ISIS no longer operates like the quasi-state that shocked the
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: world in 2014, yet it can still conduct insurgent attacks,
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: recruit supporters, and exploit weak areas. That means Iraq's security
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: forces will face a different problem after the last US
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: troops leave. Instead of defeating a conventional territorial enemy, they
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: will have to prevent a decentralized insurgency from rebuilding. This
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: requires intelligence, local cooperation, border security, rapid response, and the
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: ability to disrupt networks before they become large enough.
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: To seize territory again.
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: Iraqi forces have considerable experience now. They fought ISIS for years,
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: conducted major operations in cities, and developed counterterrorism units that
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: have become more capable. The coalition's long campaign also gave
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: Iraq's military access to equipment, training, and operational experience. That
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: progress is one of the central reasons the United States
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: can now withdraw. Yet institutional capacity is not the same
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: as permanent immunity. Security gains can erode if political conflict
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: weakens state institutions or if local communities lose confidence in
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: the government. Terrorist organizations often exploit grievances rather than simply
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: military weakness. If communities feel abandoned, discriminated against, or economically excluded,
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: extremist groups can find opportunities to recruit, intimidate, or gather information.
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: The Iraqi government therefore faces a security task that extends
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: beyond soldiers and weapons. It must maintain public trust and
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: provide basic governance in areas where ISIS once had influence.
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: The withdrawal also affects the intelligence picture. American forces have
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: provided advanced surveillance, aerial reconnaissance, and information-sharing capabilities that can
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: help Iraqi units identify militant networks. Iraq has improved its
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: own capabilities, but replacing every aspect of coalition intelligence support
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: is difficult.
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: The challenge will be.
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: Particularly serious along remote borders and in rugged terrain. where
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: militant cells can move without attracting attention. Coordination between federal forces,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: Kurdish units, and local authorities will also matter. Iraq's fragmented
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: security architecture can produce gaps when agencies do not share
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: information effectively. ISIS has historically benefited from exactly those gaps.
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: The group can exploit jurisdictional disputes by moving between areas
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: controlled by different authorities. Northern Iraq is especially complicated because
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: federal and Kurdish forces operate within overlapping security environments. If
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: cooperation weakens after the U.S. departure, militants could potentially.
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: Exploit the seams.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: That makes the future relationship between Baghdad and Erbil a
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: counterterrorism issue as much as a constitutional.
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: Or political one.
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: The government will need mechanisms that allow security forces to
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: coordinate across administrative boundaries. Another concern is the regional environment.
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: ISIS networks do not necessarily respect national borders. Iraq shares
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: a long and complicated frontier with Syria, where instability can
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: create opportunities for militants. Developments in Syria can therefore directly
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: affect Iraq. If militant prisoners, displaced families, or extremist networks
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: move across borders, Iraqi authorities may face consequences for events
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: beyond their control. The United States has historically used Iraqi
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: territory as part of its broader regional counterterrorism architecture. With
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: that arrangement ending, Iraq may face greater responsibility for securing
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: its border and coordinating with neighboring states. That could require
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: expanded surveillance, diplomatic cooperation, and investment in border forces. The
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: government will also have to manage the politics surrounding former
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: ISIS communities. Large populations were displaced during the conflict, and
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: the process of reintegration has been uneven. Some communities continue
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: to struggle economically and socially. If residents feel permanently stigmatized
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: because of suspected connections to ISIS, that can create resentment
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: and weaken the social foundations needed for long-term stability. Counterterrorism
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: experts frequently stress that military pressure can contain extremist groups,
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: but durable defeat requires governance and legitimacy. Iraq, therefore, needs
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: a strategy that combines security with economic recovery, reconstruction, and
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: political inclusion. The changing balance among Iraq, the United States,
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: and Iran may ultimately determine the political meaning of the
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: American withdrawal because Iraq occupies a unique position between competing
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: regional and global powers. For much of the period since 2003,
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: Iraqi politics have been influenced by both Washington and Tehran,
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: with Iraqi leaders often attempting to maintain relationships with each
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: side without becoming completely dependent on either. The American military
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: presence represented one form of external power, while Iran built
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: influence through political parties, religious networks, economic connections, and armed organizations.
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: The departure of U.S. troops could alter that balance.
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: Supporters of the withdrawal may argue that Iraq will finally
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: be able to operate without being caught between foreign military agendas.
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: Critics may fear that the removal of American troops will
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: make Tehran's influence more difficult to resist. The reality is
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: likely to depend on how Iraqi institutions use the new
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: freedom created by the transition. A sovereign foreign policy does
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: not necessarily mean choosing Washington or Tehran.
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: It can mean maintaining.
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: Working relations with multiple countries while placing Iraqi interests first.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: That approach, however, requires a state strong enough to resist
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: pressure from all directions. The militia issue is central to
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: that question because many of the strongest Iran-aligned factions are
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: deeply connected to Iraq's internal political system. They are not
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: foreign armies operating openly from outside the country. They are
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: Iraqi actors with local constituencies, political representatives, and social networks,
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: even when they maintain close strategic ties to Tehran. That
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: makes Iran's influence different from straightforward foreign occupation. It is
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: embedded inside the political structure. The United States can leave physically,
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: but Iranian influence will not disappear with the last American convoy.
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: Tehran's relationships with Iraqi factions were built over decades and
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: are likely to continue. The key question is whether those
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: relationships will dominate national security decisions or coexist with a
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: stronger Iraqi state. Washington's ability to influence that outcome after
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: the troop withdrawal will.
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: Be more indirect.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: The United States can use diplomacy, economic partnerships, security cooperation,
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: and international relationships, but it will no longer have the
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: same immediate military presence. That can be an advantage if
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: it reduces anti-American sentiment and allows Washington to engage Iraq
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: as a sovereign partner rather than through the.
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: Lens of occupation.
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: It can also be a disadvantage if American policymakers lose
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: visibility into developments inside Iraq. The challenge will be maintaining
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: influence without recreating the military footprint that the withdrawal is
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: designed to end. Iraq's relationship with Iran is also complicated
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: by geography and economics. The two countries share a long
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: border and extensive trade. Millions of Iraqis have religious, family,
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: and cultural ties across the frontier. Energy relationships and commercial
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: connections create practical incentives for cooperation. Iraq cannot simply isolate
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: itself from Iran, even if some political leaders want more distance.
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: At the same time, many Iraqis are concerned about excessive
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: foreign influence, whether from Iran, the United States, or other powers.
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: Iraqi nationalism has repeatedly emerged as a political force, including
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: among communities that might otherwise be associated with regional ideological blocs.
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: That creates an opportunity for leaders in Baghdad to frame
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: the post-withdrawal period around sovereignty rather than alignment. But sovereignty
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: has to be demonstrated, not simply declared. If armed groups
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: can conduct foreign policy operations without government authorization, if external
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: powers can pressure Iraqi institutions through local proxies or if
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: Baghdad cannot secure its own territory, then sovereignty remains incomplete.
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: This is why the September 30th disarmament deadline is politically connected.
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: To the U.S. withdrawal.
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: The removal of foreign troops changes the argument for resistance,
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: while the demand for disarmament seeks to establish a more
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: centralized Iraqi security system. The two processes are occurring simultaneously
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: because policymakers recognize that one without the other could leave
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: the country in an unstable middle ground. A strong Iraqi
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: state should not need foreign troops to defend its sovereignty,
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: but it also should not allow domestic armed organizations to
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: maintain independent armies. The challenge is enormous because the militia
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: groups have political power and may resist policies they see
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: as threatening their interests. Their response will reveal how much
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: authority the Iraqi government actually possesses. The regional context adds
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: another layer. The Middle East is experiencing one of its
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: most volatile periods in decades, with conflicts and rivalries stretching
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: across multiple countries.
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: The final U.S.
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: Withdrawal also carries a powerful symbolic meaning for Iraqis because
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: the American military presence has touched nearly every major political
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: generation since the fall of Saddam Hussein. And the departure
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: creates an opportunity for the country to redefine its national
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: identity after years in which foreign intervention dominated public debate.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: For people who lived through the 2003 invasion, the American
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: presence can evoke memories of military operations, checkpoints, reconstruction projects,
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: insurgent attacks, and enormous political upheaval. For people who were
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: children during the ISIS war— The United States may be
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: remembered less as the force that overthrew Saddam and more
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: as the international partner that helped local fighters defeat an
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: extremist organization that threatened entire communities. Different generations, therefore, hold
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: very different memories of what American troops represented. Some see
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: liberation from dictatorship followed by disastrous instability. Others see an
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: essential counterterrorism partnership. Still others see both realities at once
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: and remain skeptical of foreign military involvement regardless of its
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: stated purpose. The withdrawal will not erase those memories, but
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: it may change how they influence Iraqi politics. The government
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: in Baghdad can now emphasize that the country's security is
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: formally under Iraqi control. That message could strengthen national pride
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: and reduce one of the most persistent arguments used by
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: armed factions to justify their independent weapons. At the same time,
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: the government will have to prove that sovereignty means more
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: than the absence of foreign troops. It must demonstrate that
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: the state can protect citizens, enforce laws, and prevent armed
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: actors from operating with impunity. Ordinary Iraqis may judge the
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: transition not through diplomatic statements but through practical outcomes. Can
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: families feel safe? Can businesses operate without fear? Can communities
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: recover economically? Can political disputes be settled without violence? Those
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: questions will matter more than whether politicians declare victory. The
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: departure also creates an opportunity for Iraq to focus on
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: problems that received less attention during the years of war.
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: Economic development, public services, corruption, unemployment, infrastructure, and education remain critical.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: A state that spends too much political energy on security
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: competition may struggle to address these issues. The hope is
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: that reducing the foreign military footprint can allow Iraq's leaders
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: to devote greater attention to domestic governance.
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: But this is not automatic.
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: A country can have fewer foreign soldiers and still remain
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: trapped in political crisis. The post-withdrawal period could therefore become
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: a test of whether Iraq's political system has matured enough
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: to move beyond emergency politics. The years after 2003 were
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: dominated by survival. the years after 2014 were dominated by
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: fighting ISIS. Now, the central challenge could be building a
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: state capable of managing competition peacefully. That requires political parties
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: to accept rules, armed factions to accept state authority, and
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: institutions to become strong enough to resolve disputes. The international
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: community can encourage those changes, but it cannot impose them sustainably.
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: The American experience demonstrates the limits of outside attempts to
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: redesign political systems. Military power can remove a government or
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: defeat a terrorist army, but it cannot manufacture legitimacy. Legitimacy
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: emerges from institutions that citizens believe represent them. The Iraqi state, therefore,
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: has to build legitimacy from within. One part of that
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: process is ensuring that the security forces are seen as
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: national institutions rather than as tools of particular political factions.
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: The army, police, counterterrorism service, and other official forces need
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: to operate under clear civilian authority. The same principle must
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: eventually apply to the PMF, even if integration is complicated.
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: If citizens believe that some groups can act above the
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: law because they have political protection, trust in the state
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: will remain weak. The disarmament deadline thus becomes more than
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: a military measure. It is a test of equality under
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: the law. The government must demonstrate that no armed faction
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: is permanently exempt from national authority. That will be politically
• 42:19
  Speaker 1: difficult because militia groups have supporters.
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: And political influence.
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: Yet allowing exceptions can create a permanent security dilemma. Every
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: faction will have an incentive to retain weapons if it
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: believes others will do the same. The state then remains
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: trapped between competing armed organizations. Breaking that cycle requires confidence
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: that disarmament will be mutual and enforceable. Political negotiations may
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: therefore be as important as military enforcement. Factions need to
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: believe that giving up independent weapons will not leave them
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: defenseless against rivals. The economic consequences of the US withdrawal
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: may receive less attention than the military headlines, but they
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: could become increasingly important because Iraq's future stability will depend
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: heavily on whether the country can translate improved security into
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: economic growth and stronger regional integration. For years, conflict dominated
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: the national agenda and consumed enormous resources that could otherwise
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: have supported development. Infrastructure was damaged Communities were displaced and
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: investors faced uncertainty. The defeat of ISIS created new opportunities,
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: but those opportunities remain conditional on maintaining stability. The end
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: of the American military mission could help Iraq present itself
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: as a more sovereign and predictable country. potentially encouraging trade
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: and investment from regional partners. Gulf states in particular have
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: shown interest in deeper economic relationships with Iraq, and Baghdad
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: has sought to position itself as a bridge between the Gulf, Iran, Turkey,
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: and the wider region. Transportation corridors, energy projects, electricity cooperation,
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: and industrial investment all depend on a.
• 44:09
  Speaker 2: Basic level of security.
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: Businesses need confidence that roads will remain open, infrastructure will
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: not be attacked, and political decisions will not suddenly be
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: overturned by armed groups. That means the security transition and
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: the economic transition are directly connected. A country cannot fully
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: capitalize on its geographic advantages if political violence remains a
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: persistent risk. Iraq occupies a valuable strategic location. It sits
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: between major energy-producing states and major consumer markets, connects the
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: Gulf with the Levant, and has access to important trade routes.
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: If stability improves, those advantages could generate significant economic opportunities.
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: If armed factions continue to operate independently, or if political
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: disputes repeatedly become security crises, investors may remain cautious. The
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: withdrawal therefore places greater responsibility on Iraqi leaders to demonstrate
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: that the post-war environment is not simply a temporary pause,
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: but the beginning of a more predictable era. The Kurdish
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: region also has an important economic role. Its oil sector, borders,
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: and location make it a potential gateway for regional commerce,
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: but its economy has faced disputes and financial pressure. The
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: relationship between Erbil and Baghdad will influence whether northern Iraq
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: can attract new investment. Security cooperation is part of that equation.
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: International companies need confidence not only in physical safety but
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: in legal and political stability. If disputes over budgets, oil rights,
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: or administrative authority remain unresolved, the broader investment environment can suffer.
• 45:56
  Speaker 2: U.S.
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: Military withdrawal does not directly solve any of these issues,
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: but it changes the context in which they are negotiated.
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: Iraqi leaders can no longer assume that American military presence
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: will provide a backdrop of stability. They must show that
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: national institutions can maintain it. That can encourage domestic political
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: reform if leaders recognize that economic development depends on stronger
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: state authority.
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: Another factor is energy.
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: Iraq remains deeply dependent on oil revenues and fluctuations in
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: global energy markets can significantly affect government finances. Diversifying the
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: economy is difficult but necessary. Investments in infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, services,
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: and technology could create jobs and reduce vulnerability to oil
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: price changes. But diversification requires long-term planning and a stable
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: political environment. Security institutions, therefore, have an indirect but crucial
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: role in economic development. When citizens feel safe, businesses invest
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: more confidently. When infrastructure is protected, governments can plan long-term projects.
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: When political disputes are resolved through institutions, investors can calculate
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: risks more accurately. The end of the US military mission
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: could potentially help Iraq move toward that environment if the
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: transition is stable. But if militia competition or extremist violence increases,
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: the economic benefits may disappear. International lenders and investors will
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: watch the next stage carefully. They will be looking for
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: evidence that Iraq can maintain security without a large foreign
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: military presence. They will also look for signs that the
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: government is serious about corruption regulatory reform, and predictable economic policy.
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: Military withdrawal can improve Iraq's international image, but only if
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: domestic governance keeps pace. Iraq's neighbors also have economic stakes.
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: Turkey has extensive trade and energy ties with northern Iraq.
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: Gulf states are interested in infrastructure and regional connectivity. Iran
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: remains an important trading partner. Syria's stability affects cross-border movement.
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: Europe and Asian economies have interests in energy security and
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: trade routes. The final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: is therefore much more than the closing movement of a
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: long military operation. It is a moment when several different histories, risks,
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: and hopes converge. The United States is on track to
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: complete its departure by September 30, 2026, ending the latest
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: phase of an American military presence that began with the
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: 2003 invasion, formally ended in 2011, returned in 2014 to
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: defeat ISIS, and continued in advisory and counterterrorism roles after
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: the coalition's combat mission concluded. The physical story can be
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: reduced to bases closing, personnel redeploying, and equipment moving out,
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: but the political story is much larger. Iraq is being
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: asked to take full responsibility for its own security while
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: simultaneously confronting the most difficult question of sovereignty it has
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: faced since the defeat of ISIS, who ultimately controls the
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: weapons inside the country. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has tried
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: to connect the two issues by establishing the same September
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: 30th deadline for ending the coalition mission and demanding that
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: non-state armed groups surrender their weapons. that creates a defining
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: test for the Iraqi government. The country can celebrate the
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: departure of foreign troops as an achievement of sovereignty, but
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: that achievement will remain incomplete if powerful factions continue to
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: maintain independent military capabilities and operate beyond effective government control.
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: At the same time, the government must prevent the withdrawal
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: from creating opportunities for ISIS remnants or other extremist networks
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: to rebuild. Iraqi security forces have come a long way
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: since the crisis of 2014. They helped destroy ISIS's territorial control,
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: regained experience through years of combat, and developed institutions capable
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: of taking greater responsibility. Kurdish Peshmerga forces also played a
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: critical role and will now carry more of the security
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: burden in northern Iraq as American troops leave the Kurdistan region.
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: Those forces have demonstrated their capabilities, But the transition will
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: require sustained cooperation between Baghdad and Erbil, strong intelligence sharing,
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: and the ability to respond quickly to threats that cross
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: political boundaries. The post-American era will not be risk-free. It may, however,
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: provide Iraq with an opportunity that was difficult to achieve
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: while foreign forces remained central to national security debates.
• 51:01
  Speaker 2: Iraqi political leaders.
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: Can now define the country's foreign policy and security architecture
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: more directly. They can choose whether Iraq becomes a battleground
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: for regional rivalries or a state capable of maintaining balanced
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: relationships with competing powers. The United States will remain interested
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: in Iraq, but the nature of that interest can change.
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: Washington can pursue diplomacy, economic ties, defense cooperation, and intelligence
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: partnerships without maintaining the same troop presence. That may allow
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: the relationship to become less defined by war. For Iraq,
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: the goal should not simply be to replace one outside
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: influence with another. True sovereignty requires the capacity to make
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: decisions based on national interests even when powerful neighbors disagree.
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: That is particularly challenging because Iran has built deep political, economic,
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: and military relationships inside Iraq, while the United States maintains
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: its own strategic interests in the country and the wider region.
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: The solution cannot be permanent dependence on either power. It
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: has to be strong Iraqi institutions. Those institutions must be
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: capable of controlling borders, protecting citizens, supporting economic development, and
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: enforcing laws equally. The militia issue will test whether that
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: is possible. If armed organizations refuse to surrender weapons, Baghdad
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: will need to decide how far it is willing to
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: go to enforce its authority. Negotiation may prevent conflict, but
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: negotiation without credible enforcement can also.
• 52:38
  Speaker 2: Leave the state weakened.
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: Confrontation may demonstrate strength, but a poorly managed confrontation could
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: destabilize the country. The government will therefore need a strategy
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: that combines political inclusion, institutional integration, and carefully calibrated pressure.
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: The objective should be to create a security.
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: Structure in which former fighters can become part of legitimate
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: national institutions or transition into civilian life without leaving behind
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: rival armed centers of power. That process will not be
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: completed simply because a deadline exists. It could take years.
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: The same is true for the broader security transition. ISIS
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: may remain a threat at a lower level, and new
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: regional crises could emerge unexpectedly.
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: Iraq will need to.
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: Maintain counterterrorism capabilities, border surveillance, and intelligence networks. It will
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: also need to address the social and economic conditions that
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: extremists exploit. A secure country is not created by weapons alone.