Iraq Special: When a Withdrawal Is Not a Withdrawal (Alaaldin)

Ranj Alaaldin writes for The Guardian of London:

The last US combat brigade in Iraq has left the country, seven years after the US-led invasion. Martin Chulov was there to witness the process for the Guardian and he describes the marked difference between the "shock and awe" US entry into Iraq with its silent, somewhat depressive, trickle out.

The media and commentators alike have hailed the so-called US withdrawal as the end of the US in Iraq. It is, however, no withdrawal – combat or otherwise – no matter how many times you call it that.

Iraq Special: Obama Declares Victory. Sort Of. Depends How You Look at It. (The Onion)
Iraq Special: When a War is Not Over (Bacevich)
Iraq: The Political Worries Beyond the US “Withdrawal” (Shadid)

Fifty thousand US troops will stay in Iraq until 2011, down from 96,000, ostensibly to play a supporting role and advise Iraqi forces. That is, however, 50,000 armed US troops, backed up by major military hardware and artillery and who will operate in "self-defence" and could intervene in armed combat at the request of the Iraqi government.

As volatility continues to grip northern Iraq and the south experiences an increase in attacks, those triggers for American intervention could come sooner than most think, rendering the whole withdrawal of "combat" troops a meaningless, public relations stunt that makes a mockery of the intelligence of the Iraqi and American people.

Of course, the US already plays a largely hands-off role in military operations in Iraq – meaning that despite some of the apocalyptic expectations out there, security and stability should not dramatically deteriorate. However, the Iraqi government is still dependent on American military expertise, equipment and intelligence and this could continue in the decades to come, much like the Sultanate of Oman in the aftermath of the British so-called withdrawal that followed the end of the Dhofar war in 1975.

On my last trip to Iraq, when I spoke to senior Iraqi officials, there was a feeling that a new security agreement will be signed in 2011 and that it will establish a sizeable US presence. Sources suggest a 400-man advisory mission in 2012, under the auspices of the US embassy. Other forces would then operate periodically in the area on rotational exercises and training curricula with Iraqi forces. Combined with this force would be the private security contractors, who expect to see a rise in profits as the US scales down. In total, expectations are that there will be a permanent Saudi-scale US footprint of 1,000 to 2,000 personnel.

The sad reality, of course, is that little attention is paid to the fact significant numbers of Iraqis actually want the US to stay. Fears of increased Saudi and Iranian encroachment into Iraq still abound, while Iraq's political players, unable to form a government five months on since March, remain blinded by the lure of power. The terrorists are indeed taking advantage of the political vacuum, as attacks in recent weeks have shown. Some might say that even they want the US to stay, given that the impetus for damage and destruction is somewhat dependent on the American presence.