Is America still willing to fight for the future of Iraq after defeating ISIL in Iraq War 2.0 that defeated ISIL?
I worried that America might not support the Iraqi government enough to suppress Iran's militias inside Iraq:
The Iraqis are finally cracking down more on armed militias and tribes which give Iran a path to destabilize Iraq. So why Trump is not being more supportive of Iraq's prime minister given Iraq's problems with Iran is a mystery to me.
The threat to leave Iraq is paired with a demand for Iraqis to battle the Iranian pawns who are attacking our embassy:
As the attacks against US and other foreign missions and bases in Iraq continue, the United States is warning the Iraqi government that it will take action against the militias involved in the attacks if it fails to do so itself.
A source attending a meeting called by Iraqi President Barham Salih, attended by many Iraqi political and faction leaders, told Al-Monitor that Salih told the participants that he had received a letter from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning Iraq that if the attacks against the United States do not stop, it will close its embassy in Baghdad and target all involved militias without distinction.
It helps in getting Iraqi support that the Iranian proxies can't seem to help themselves in limiting their attacks:
Five Iraqi civilians were killed and two severely wounded Monday after a Katyusha rocket hit near Baghdad airport, Iraq's military said. It was the first time in months an attack caused civilian casualties.
The rocket targeted the international airport but struck a residential home close by instead. Among the dead were three children and two women. Two children were also severely wounded. The home was completely destroyed.
And America's willingness to hit ISIL in Kirkuk province with air strikes (notwithstanding my unease over putting our capital ships in the Persian Gulf) demonstrates the ability to hit Iranian proxies in Iraq, too:
For the first time in over two years, carrier-launched U.S. aircraft conducted an airstrike against Islamic State targets in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the global coalition battling the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria.
The Iraqis insist they are trying and worry American departure will trigger other withdrawals:
[Iraqi Foreign Minister] Fuad Hussein spoke at a press conference amid a heated week, sparked by the U.S. warning that it was taking measures to close its embassy in Baghdad unless the Iraqi government took action to stop frequent rocket and improvised explosive device attacks by Iran-backed militias and rogue armed elements against the American presence in the country.
Hussein called the threat to close the U.S. Embassy “dangerous” because “there is a possibility that the American withdrawal from Baghdad will lead to other (embassy) withdrawals.”
I certainly hope our pressure to get the Iraqis to protect our embassy from Iranian attacks is part of a carrot and stick approach to waging war on Iran in Iraq rather than a prelude to bugging out of Iraq and risking the victory we have achieved.
UPDATE: An American threat to withdraw from Iraq has to be credible to be effective in getting change in Iraqi policy toward Iran. So I hope this indicates that change is taking place and that we will work with Iraqis:
Washington warned Thursday that it would not tolerate attacks on US interests in Iraq by Iran-backed militias, as Baghdad worries about a possible US withdrawal. ...
"We are working, and we look forward to continuing to work with our Iraqi partners to keep our personnel and our facility safe," [David Schenker, assistant secretary of state, for near Eastern affairs] said.
Fingers crossed.
