At the end of April Britain brought to a close its military involvement in Iraq which had lasted since the US-led invasion of that country in March 2003. The 3,800 British military personnel at Basra airport hauled down their flag and prepared to depart. Yet they handed over their base not to Iraqi forces but to 5,000 American troops newly deployed to the area.
This seems a strange development. The Basra area is one of the most peaceful regions of Iraq, fully under the control of the government in Baghdad. The United States has promised to withdraw most of its combat forces from Iraq, pulling out of the cities this summer. So why is a military base in peaceful Basra being handed over to American rather than Iraqi forces?
The answer would seem to be that some Americans, especially in the higher levels of US Central Command, are having second thoughts about withdrawing from Iraq. They intend to seize every opportunity to keep substantial US forces in the country, whatever the promises of President Barack Obama or the wishes of the Iraqi people.
General Petraeus, the new head of Central Command, likes to take credit for the supposed victory his 'surge' strategy achieved in Iraq. Yet his commanders in that country are now claiming that conditions are becoming insecure once again, and they imply that US withdrawal will have to be delayed or even postponed indefinitely.
In northern Iraq al-Qaeda terrorists, so recently said to be broken and on the run, appear to be staging a come-back, especially in and around the city of Mosul. The local US commander says that American forces may have to remain on duty in the area for the foreseeable future. This will no doubt be good news for the pro-American Kurds of northern Iraq, who are already fearful of attacks by the central government in Baghdad. However, other Iraqis may find a continued American presence less palatable.
Similarly, the Sunni Arabs who deserted the anti-American insurgency to join the Awakening movement during Petraeus' 'surge' operations are now beginning to have second thoughts about their decision. The United States is actively supporting the Shia-controlled government of Nuri al-Maliki in its continuing arrests of important Sunni leaders of the Awakening councils for their alleged past crimes. American promises of amnesty now ring hollow among the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and it seems more than likely that many former insurgents will return to making attacks on American and Iraqi government forces.
Originally the Americans had their doubts about Nuri al-Maliki, but now they are warming to him. He is a potential Iraqi strong man with, unusually, solid democratic credentials for his rule. The Americans are ready to back him against al-Qaeda remnants, Sunni former insurgents, and Shia rivals such as the openly anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr. The problem is that Nuri al-Maliki enjoys popular support precisely because he is seen as the man who is getting the Americans to leave Iraq. If he is seen as being an accomplice to their continued presence, the Iraqi prime minister will soon lose popular support.
Even if the Americans cannot use renewed security problems as an excuse to stay, their withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi government still gives them ample room to keep a military presence in the country. Under the agreement, the United states can keep 'residual' armed forces in Iraq, chiefly to train the Iraqi military. Yet some estimates of these 'residual' forces have gone as high as 35-50,000 personnel in half a dozen bases. This is hardly a token presence as it would amount to almost a third of the US military force in Iraq at its peak of deployment. The retention of such a large force in Iraq would be disquieting to both the Iraqi and American peoples after all the promises of complete US withdrawal from Iraq that have been made.
Despite a rising tide of violent incidents in both Baghdad and Mosul, the Iraqi government continues to insist that US forces will leave all Iraqi cities by 30 June and will withdraw from the whole country by the end of 2011. Whether this timetable will in fact be met must be open to increasing doubt.
