This is a start:
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi stepped back from his commitment to abide by new U.S. sanctions on Iran on Monday, saying his government would only respect the dollar ban in transactions with Iran. ...
Asked if Baghdad would stop imports of commodities, appliances and equipment by government companies from Iran he said the matter was still being reviewed.
This seems like some hedging of bets by Iraq. On the surface Iraq is siding with America. But in details Iraq will work with Iran somewhat.
America left Iraq at the end of 2011 after defeating the insurgencies and terrorists. This compelled Iraq to bend before the stronger Iran in significant fashion. One result was the weakening of Iraq's military which collapsed in the face of ISIL's uprising across northern Iraq which seized Mosul (adding to gains made earlier in the year in Anbar province).
Hopefully America will not leave Iraq again after defeating ISIL in Iraq War 2.0.
And remember, just as we were needed in 2011 to keep the pressure on al Qaeda to defeat the remnants of that force so it couldn't regenerate (as it did), we need to help Iraq finish off ISIL in Iraq as well as finish off ISIL in Syria:
The Islamic State problem in Iraq and Syria is “far from over” and U.S. and coalition forces are not letting up on efforts to neutralize ISIS fighters from cities where they still have strongholds, military officials said Tuesday.
“There is still a lot of work to be done both militarily and on civilian stabilization efforts in both countries,” said Col. Sean Ryan, a spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led coalition fight against ISIS. “Make no mistake — the coalition is not talking victory or taking our foot off the gas in working with our partners.”
We took our foot off the gas in 2011. Which is why we had Iraq War 2.0 plus providing Assad with a convenient contrast to his unpopular rule.
If we stay to fight ISIL, we will also bolster Iraq against Iranian influence, making Iraq better able to push Iran out with more consistency and confidence.
UPDATE: Let's hope this is true:
U.S. forces will stay in Iraq "as long as needed" to help stabilize regions previously controlled by Islamic State, a spokesman for the U.S.-led international coalition fighting the militants said on Sunday.
"We'll keep troops there as long as we think they're needed ... The main reason, after ISIS (Islamic State) is defeated militarily, is the stabilization efforts and we still need to be there for that, so that's one of the reasons we'll maintain a presence," Colonel Sean Ryan told a news conference in Abu Dhabi.
Let's hope this is Trump's intent. And let's hope we help stabilize all of Iraq previously controlled by Saddam. Because the problem isn't just in territory formerly held by ISIL.
UPDATE: This is comforting and neatly summarizes what we need to fight for post-caliphate in Iraq:
The US-led anti ISIS coalition’s spokesman, Col. Sean Ryan said that the American forces are staying in Iraq upon its request.
In an interview with Al Hadath news channel, the spokesman said that there is no doubts there is an Iranian presence in Iraq but it does not affect them.
He added that ISIS is a tough enemy though its numbers has declined, asserting that the coalition will continue to fight the extremist group.
Col. Ryan pointed out that the political situation in Iraq is difficult at present, adding that the coalition takes any threats seriously, but its goal is to fight ISIS.
He explained that the Kurdish forces belong to the Iraqi forces, and that the coalition deals with them through the Iraqi central government. [emphasis added]
Iraq wants us to stay and we are willing to stay. And with the example of our willingness to leave when asked and the results of America's departure in 2011, nobody is still willing to pretend that our departure is a good idea.
The task list requiring our presence is impressive, no? Those tasks existed in 2011. But the past is past. Let's do it now and help the Iraqis resist Iranian influence which Iraqis mostly reject.
