Washington Kurdish Institute
August 17, 2021
Last month, the US and Iraq concluded the fourth round of what’s known as “strategic dialogue.” The talks usually focus on the future of the United States’ presence in Iraq and security cooperation, but it also covers aides to Iraq in various fields, including economic and humanitarian. The agreement was first signed between the two states in 2008 when the U.S. pledged to withdraw combat forces and transition all powers to the Iraqi. Moreover, by 2011 the U.S. had withdrawn its military forces from Iraq, but had to redeploy more when ISIS emerged in the summer of 2014. The U.S. presence in Iraq aimed to help the country rebuild as billions of U.S. dollars were spent on vital institutions of Iraq. However, since 2003 the U.S. has faced aggression from various armed groups, including al Qaeda and other radical Sunni groups, as well as from Iranian-backed Shia militias. Indeed, the Kurds were the only ones partnering with the U.S. and advocating for the continuation of the U.S. presence in Iraq. U.S. President W Bush signed the 2008 agreement, and President Obama followed the agreement and his election campaign pledge. Still, the U.S. remained involved in the country, especially after leading a global coalition against ISIS. Soon after the ISIS caliphate was physically defeated, the Iranian-backed militias and political blocs rallied behind an anti-American banner in Iraq, leading to more rounds of the strategic dialogue.
Is the “combat troops’ withdrawal” the beginning of the US exit?
Many fear that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will have disastrous consequences, similar to those we witness in Afghanistan. Moreover, the emergence of ISIS, threats by Iranian-backed militias, and severe political and sectarian division will only make Iraq another Afghanistan. There are fears and doubts about whether the U.S. is paving the way to exit Iraq completely. However, Iraq’s security and political expert, Dr. Michael Knights, dismisses the possibility of a US withdrawal from Iraq and describes the U.S. and Iraq strategic dialogue as “checking in with each other.” “Iraq’s prime minister got the second call of any Middle-Eastern leader after Israel, that shows you how important Iraq and the Kurdistan region still is to the U.S. even if we don’t want to fight wars there and have a hundred thousand troops there, it doesn’t matter. Iraq is still recognized as being vital, and Kurdistan is still recognized as being one of the closest friends the U.S. has anywhere in the world. So that is what the strategic dialogue does. It’s there to say every six months, we’re all going to check in with each other, and we’re going to keep moving the ball. And eventually, it will be less about security, and it will be more about other things,” said Dr. Knights during an event hosted by the Washington Kurdish Institute (WKI).
Do the Kurds fear existential threats after the US withdrawal?
The Kurds have been the only true allies to the US since 2003. Kurdistan remains the only safe and stable area, friendly to the US. However, in case of complete US withdrawal, Kurds might face existential threats by Baghdad, Tehran, and Ankara like those they experienced on October 16, 2017. “ Are we concerned about the US withdrawal? Well, the US is not talking about a complete withdrawal in terms of vacuuming everything out of Iraq. What we’re hearing is that the mission would be non-combat advisory and training, and there is a recognition by all sides, the sensible sides let’s say, that this is what’s necessary. In terms of would it be an existential threat for Kurdistan? We face existential threats every day, right? Being a Kurd means you are a threat to someone just saying your name. If it’s written in Kurdish is a threat to somebody. It’s something that we’ve learned to survive with or to overcome by just surviving and I think we will manage. The Kurdistan regional government and the leadership have good relations with Turkey, Iran, with other neighbors like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. And I think that’s the strategy that we need to have. We need to have good relations, not only with the United States and European partners, but also very importantly with our neighbors and regional partners. So survival is the Kurdish game,” said Bayan Sami Abdulrahman, Representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to the US.
The situation in the Disputed Territories and Washington’s wrong policies benefited Baghdad, Tehran, and Ankara
Washington, under President Trump, turned a blind eye to Baghdad, Tehran, and Ankara attacking the Kurds using the independence referendum as an excuse since the Kurdistan region has been vulnerable to aggressions. For example, Iranian-backed militias have launched several more attacks on the U.S. troops housed in Erbil. Further, the militias also launched attacks against U.S. troops in Kirkuk, where the U.S. allowed Baghdad and these militias to occupy it on October 16, 2017. Moreover, Turkey has occupied a large area in the Kurdistan region under the pretext of fighting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). At the same time, Baghdad continues using economic pressure on the region.
“If we look at the disputed territories today, the situation has deteriorated significantly. In Kirkuk, for example, the Kurdish governor was illegally replaced by an Arab. The governing council was later dissolved by a vote in Iraqi Parliament, allowing the Arab governor to assume the duties of the governing council as well. Many Kurdish directors of government departments have been removed and replaced by non-Kurds. There is also a lack of basic services.
Residents only have electricity for a few hours per day, they sometimes go days without running water. There’s no garbage pickup or street cleaning and the streets look like a landfill. Any new projects are done in the Arab areas while the Kurdish areas are neglected. Kurds are evicted from their homes and replaced by Arabs, just as they were under the rule of the Ba’ath party.
Additionally, a number of Shia militia groups who are not from these areas are there conducting their criminal activities including extortion, smuggling oil, and smuggling & trafficking drugs from Iran. These militias must leave immediately.
ISIS remains a major threat, especially within a seam between the Peshmerga and where the Iraqi forces are. That seam is an East-West line that varies between 20-50 kilometers apart. ISIS operates freely in that area. ISIS attacks and kills security forces on a regular basis. They attack critical infrastructure, including power stations. They set up fake checkpoints and demand money from people, they also kidnap for ransom,” said Sierwan Najmaldin Karim, President of the Washington Kurdish Institute.
Kurds, Sunnis, Christians, and other minorities are against US withdrawal
Since 2003, Iran has used different Shia proxies to launch attacks on the US. Iran has backed the majority of Iraqi Shia political parties since establishing the Islamic regime in Iran in 1979. Many of those proxies fought alongside Iran against Iraq from 1980-1988. Soon after the physical defeat of the “Caliphate,” Iranian-backed militias who carry radical-extremist Shia sector and other Shia-backed parties demanded the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Iran’s effortless lobby on Iraqi proxies led the Iraqi Shia parties to pass a resolution calling on the government to expel the US troops in the country. Nonetheless, Dr. Kamaran Palani explained how the Kurds, Sunnis, and other minorities are against the U.S. withdrawal.
“I think it’s important to mention that the demand for American troops to leave Iraq started with the resolution of the Iraqi parliament on 4th of January, 2020. I think it’s planned for everyone. It was a move after the aftermath of the killing of Qassim Soliemani. What is significant here is the following: the vote was exclusively, almost exclusively passed by the Shia parties and alliances in the parliament. Kurds boycotted the session. What is really interesting, which is the focus of my intervention today, is that the Sunnis also rejected the resolution for the first time. I think it represented a major shift in the Sunni perception towards the international and the U.S. forces in the country. But in the analysis, even in the way the U.S. looks at the dialogue, they tend to adopt a unitary perspective. I’m not suggesting really adopting an ethno-sectarian perspective but really just to look at how the diverse communities perceive the dialogue. I’ve spent most of my time recently conducting field work in Mosul, Nineveh Plains, Sinjar, and disputed territories,” said Dr. Palani, Research Fellow at al Sharq Strategic Research.
Dr. Palani explained how the Christians, Yazidis, Shabaks, and Kakais see the strategic dialogue. “ If you look at their territories from Sinjar, Nineveh Plains, including Hamdania, Tal Kief, Tuz Khurmatu, they are controlled by Hezbollah, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and also groups linked to the Badr organization. A key feature of the security landscape there is the militarization of ethnoreligious minorities. Within Shabak, now there is a militia within Turkmens, there is a militia, within Christians there is a militia and within Yazidis. So really the militarization of ethnoreligious minorities and identities in these territories has further complicated any resolution between Erbil and Baghdad on the article 140, because it’s no longer a conflict between two main governments. It’s a very complicated, very complex, environment with different armed groups involved. And also they militarized the communities. When you talk to the people in these territories that I was there last week, they really fear the U.S. forces leaving Iraq. Because that means for them, it’s a complete control of the Iranian-backed militias,” Dr. Palani added.
Would Iraq face the consequences if they are unable to fulfill the strategic agreement?
The Iraqi government has failed to fulfill the articles of the strategic agreement with the U.S. signed first in 2008, mainly on the security side. Excluding the attacks by al Qaeda and later ISIS, the Iranian-backed militias continued launching deadly attacks against the U.S. troops against the agreement. The difference between attacks by al Qaeda and ISIS is that the Iranian-backed militias are part of the official-recognized security force of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Moreover, the Iraqi government also failed to protect the U.S. diplomatic mission as we saw raids and rocket attacks on the U.S. embassy. Dr. Knights warned about the militia attacks and their aftermath on Iraq.
“I think it really depends on what kind of attacks we see, ultimately. The number of attacks and the intent behind the attacks. If you believe, or if you assess that militia-rockets and drones are meant to miss, if you believe that they are meant to be fake resistance, basically, ‘look, we are rocketing an American base, but if American gets killed, it’s just blind, bad luck. If you believe that, then you perhaps believe that we can continue like this now, and that we can just keep going. It’s annoying, but it doesn’t stop us from leaving the country. I think there’s a different view, though, which is that it can’t carry on like this forever for two reasons. One, eventually, the militias will on purpose or by accident kill some Americans. And this has nearly happened a couple of times already. When the militias even fire drones, those drones did not have active video links on them. They just like GPS. They go from one place to another place, and they don’t know if a bunch of Americans are standing right next to that thing that they hit. So at some point, there’s going to be some bad luck and a whole bunch of Americans are going to get killed, or we might even see the militias get more aggressive and try and kill Americans. If Iran decides, ‘you know what, these negotiations are not going fast enough, let’s, let’s turn up the heat’ or if one of the individual militias says,” let’s turn up the heat,” then we could be in a whole different situation. So this is a very dangerous gamble to play every day in Iraq. It’s also not good here in Washington. The Congress, people, the media, they see us getting attacked all the time in Iraq. When we’re just providing training. We don’t see much about the Islamic State. Doesn’t feel like it’s a big threat to America, and it’s not. We could leave here and let the Iraqis and Kurds deal with Islamic state. And we would be okay for a whole bunch of years, because it would take a long time for Islamic State to be able to rebuild their attack capability against the United States or against our well-protected embassies overseas. So, it just looks bad here and it makes people ask the question, what are we doing there now? I think that’s partly what the militias want. They want us to give up, they look at Afghanistan and they say, maybe we can do that here, but in Iraq. So, I don’t think we can risk this gamble for much longer,” Dr. Knights added.
How do Erbil and Baghdad cooperate in implementing the strategic dialogue amid disagreements on many issues?
Baghdad and Erbil have had profound issues that accumulated since 2003. For example, there are the issues of the implementation of article 140 of the constitution in regards to the disputed territories, the federal budget of the Kurdistan region, the allocation of the Peshmerga budget as part of the defense system in Iraq, and more minor issues in regards to war crimes compensation to the Kurds. But the current Iraqi cabinet led by Mustafa al Kadhimi has somewhat good relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The U.S. is supporting both sides to overcome the issues since it will stabilize the country and strengthen Iraq. Is it realistic for Baghdad and Erbil to help the implementation of the U.S. – Iraq agreement amid unsolved problems? Ms Abdulrahman says, “ there are many areas of dispute between the two sides and tensions, but there are also areas of agreement. I would say that considering where we were, let’s say 2018 immediately after the referendum and the fallout of the referendum, I think both sides have come a very long way. Prime minister Massrour Barzani and President Nechirvan Barzani are in dialogue with the Prime Minister al Kadhimi in Baghdad, of course also with president Barham Salih. We are part of the Iraqi government. Dr. Fuad Hussien is the Foreign Minister. He, of course is in Prime Minister al Kadhimi’s delegation, should be going to the White House today, maybe even as we speak. So, yes, there are areas of tension, but we have also been able to bring the relationship forward from where it was just a few years ago.
A lot of the tension is about some of the things that Sierwan talked about. The disputed territories. We’re very concerned for the population there, whether they are Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrian, Chaldaian, Christian, Chaldian, Christian, Yazidi, whoever they are. We’re very concerned for their well being. They are part of our community and they should be taken care of as equal citizens of Iraq. We’re also very concerned about the budget situation after lengthy, lengthy discussions and negotiations over the federal budget law and then the passing of the budget law. We still haven’t really seen the fair share of the budget being delivered to the Kurdistan region. Of course, Prime Minister al Kadhimi announced just before coming to Washington that, I think about $138 million would be transferred to the KRG.This isn’t really part of the budget share. This is a kind of an advance I believe while the logistics and the mechanics of the budget delivery are being worked out.
So really what we need to see is a much clearer agreement between bill and Baghdad. I do think the U.S., the UN and other partners, could play a role in mediating between Erbil and Baghdad in many areas. The budget, disputed territories, the Sinjar agreement, which I think is crucial and we haven’t really talked about in detail.”
Ms. Abdulrahman also emphasized the importance of the U.S. and UN role in bringing both Baghdad and Erbil closer. She said” really what we need to see is a much clearer agreement between bill and Baghdad. I do think the U.S., the UN and other partners, could play a role in mediating between Erbil and Baghdad in many areas. The budget, disputed territories, the Sinjar agreement, which I think is crucial and we haven’t really talked about in detail. But the Sinjar agreement I think could be a model for other areas of Iraq, like Nineveh, if implemented successfully. But to say some positive things about the relationship in addition to Prime Minister Kadihimi, sending over that money that I just spoke about, I think the creation of the joint coordination centers is very important so that the Peshmerga and the Iraqi security forces can together secure those areas where ISIS is still able to have a foothold. There’s even talk of having joint brigades, so Peshmerga and Iraqi forces together forming two brigades. This would also, I think be another very, very positive step.
Is there a short-term solution for the disputed territories?
“I think it’s in the U.S.’ interest to find, to see this through. There is a roadmap for solving this issue through the constitution, which the United States have said that they support. In the short term, you have to normalize the security situation so that you can have free elections, whether that be for the parliament or for the provincial council, or later on for a referendum to decide the fate of these disputed territories. But in the short-term until that happens, you can possibly have a special status for these areas. Have them not be directly under the control of Baghdad or the KRG but there should be milestones put in place, not like the December 31st, 2007 deadline for the referendum. The U.S. can play a mediating role and help to see this through because if it’s left unresolved, we’ll continue to see things like ISIS as well as fights between Kurds and Arabs. It’ll never end, just like it’s been going on forever,” said Sierwan Karim.
Elections will not change the political system
After weeks of influential protests in the fall of 2019 against corruption and the political system in Iraq, a snap election is set to hold on October 10, 2021. The snap election was the sole fruit of the demands of the Iraqi youth who faced deaths and torture by Iranian-backed militias, yet the elections’ holding might not change much in the country. Iraq is ranked at leading corrupted counties while the government has not provided electricity or other essential services since 2003. But the last elections held in 2018 were the most rugged since 2003, and it faced criticism which led protestors to call for new elections. Today, the same protestors are against holding an election due to immense doubts about its transparency amid the domination of armed groups in Iraq’s political arena.
“ I believe if the elections take place in the current setting, we will see Iranian-backed political coalition will win and we are not sure about Sadr’s next move, but Sadr is also trying to revise his earlier position and a statement about the elections. So it will be really an election between the Sadr-led block and the Iranian-led block. So, in my prediction, if elections take place with these two blocks, again, you cannot have a government excluding the other blocks. It will be a consensus, a power-sharing government, again. But what is significant for me is that the protest groups have failed to establish a political organization. They could have been a game changer in the Iraqi elections, but by postponing the elections, as time moves, they have become more and more divided and fragmented. I was aware of one of the meetings between a protest leader or coordinator, as they call it, with a representative of al Kadhimi. Even al Kadhimi told him that he could, or he will try to postpone the elections if he feels that this will help them to organize, to emerge as a political alternative in the elections. But, currently, the way the process is going, it’s unlikely to have a very successful election. For me, I call this an election to legitimize the current status quo. And it is really sad because early elections were the demand of the young protectors, and now they are asking them some for postponing the elections, because the environment is not really secure and safe for them. Everyday you will hear about the killings, assassinations of activists, journalists, and what they call coordinators-organizers. So it’s really not an environment for them to emerge as a political alternative. So I’m really not optimistic about the next elections, whether it takes place or not. It’s very difficult to predict a radical and a major positive change, “ said Dr. Palani.