Big update — The US military informs Iraq of its plan for an “onward movement” of US troops in response to the requests from the Iraqi parliament and prime minister, “in due deference to the sovereignty of Iraq“. Via @LizSly 
Mark my word: this is not how it sounds. It’s NOT a withdrawal, it’s a drawdown to the pre-2014 levels, *at best*.
People will laugh at this but — as before — it’ll become clear pretty soon that this won’t really change much.
Who wants to bet?
People will laugh at this but — as before — it’ll become clear pretty soon that this won’t really change much.
Who wants to bet?
The problem with this kind of assertions, I realize, is that people will laugh at them but when they turn out to be right, people won’t say anything. And the cycle repeats.
Remember the leaving Syria episode?
Remember the leaving Syria episode?
We have to be humble about it
So here is my analysis of what’s happening, still *reportedly*
The move could be a range of things, from calling the Iraqis a bluff (this is what leaving means for you, no training nothing) to a real pull-out from Iraq to Kurdistan.
A few indications that it’s not real pullout:
The move could be a range of things, from calling the Iraqis a bluff (this is what leaving means for you, no training nothing) to a real pull-out from Iraq to Kurdistan.
A few indications that it’s not real pullout:
First of all, the Iraqi prime minister hinted yesterday that the 2011-2014 levels of US presence was fine, and didn’t hurt the strong US-Iraqi relationship.
That’s likely to be the baseline. There was a mini “surge” of troops & advisors after 2014 because of ISIS takeover.
That’s likely to be the baseline. There was a mini “surge” of troops & advisors after 2014 because of ISIS takeover.
This was the statement by the Iraqi prime minister
The most likely scenario is that the US wants to absorb the rage in Iraq, and save face with the Iraqi government. The prime minister was fuming yesterday.
But whatever it is, it is not a withdrawal. Not a withdrawal, did I say?
But whatever it is, it is not a withdrawal. Not a withdrawal, did I say?
That said, the US could recalibrate its presence in Iraq to protect its forces, something that the prime minister mentioned yesterday too: the Iraqis won’t be able to protect the US forces.
But this will be like what happened in Syria: no much change. Even increased presence.
But this will be like what happened in Syria: no much change. Even increased presence.
In Syria, the US moved away from *some* areas, but it ultimately concentrated its presence in the rest of the areas. Even sent in more vehicles, weaponry and forces.
[The US just days ago sent 3,000 additional forces to the region.]
[The US just days ago sent 3,000 additional forces to the region.]
😂
Yes. That was quick. Didn’t expect it to be this fast.
More clarification:
So this move by the US in Iraq just now is about force protection. Even less than what happened in Syria a few months ago. Much ado about nothing.
If you want to know what’ll happen next, for the foreseeable future, this remains my assessment.
The more the US withdraws, the more it does not (additional forces arrige in Baghdad — probably for force protection and relocation?)
Whoa! That was one of the possibilities:
