With the US Army announcing the completion of the withdrawal of all its forces from Iraq, many made a comparison between what happened there after more than two decades of American involvement, and the American experience in Afghanistan, which lasted for an almost similar period, although the American withdrawal from Iraq seemed more organized.
The American withdrawal from Iraq, which took place in two phases, the first in 2011 and the second which was completed at the end of September 2026, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 are similar in political desire to end long wars, but they differ significantly in terms of implementation conditions and field repercussions.
One of the internal political motives for the withdrawals was the efforts of former presidents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, to fulfill electoral promises to stop the drain on human and financial resources in the Middle East wars. Both decisions also came under the weight of economic crises and widespread internal criticism of the feasibility of continuing direct military presence.
From promises to end wars to fears of a security vacuum
The two withdrawals overlapped to a large extent in their repercussions, as they left a security vacuum and regional and international fears about the return and expansion of extremist groups, especially what happened with the first phase of the complete withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq at the end of 2011.
ISIS later took advantage of the situation and took control of large areas of the country in 2014, which required the return of American forces as part of an international coalition to fight the organization, which happened with the departure of international forces led by the United States from Afghanistan in 2021, where the Taliban movement seized power.
In both cases, there was American confirmation that terrorist organizations had been eliminated and that they no longer existed. This assertion may have been repeated by current US President Donald Trump, who praised the end of “an expensive trip to hell” in Iraq.
In a post on social media, Trump described the withdrawal as "organized" and said: "It took a long time, as very bad decisions were made that got us into this quagmire in the first place, but it will soon become part of history."
The American President considered this transformation a “victory” for the United States and Iraq, and “evidence of the victory over the Islamic State (ISIS).”
Has the American role ended or has its nature changed?
Amid different readings of this development, the Atlantic Council saw the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq as an opportunity to open a new page in the complex history of the United States there, “but this should not lead to an end to American involvement in Iraq.”
Alina Romanowski, the former US ambassador to Baghdad (2022-2024), and Victoria Taylor, the former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, said in an article in the Washington-based research institution that the US administration took this path in an attempt to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2011 in terms of withdrawal from Iraq and the subsequent control of ISIS over nearly a third of Iraqi territory.
They indicated that they were part of the small American negotiating team that worked for nearly a year to reach an agreement with Baghdad that would allow the process to be reduced in stages and the transition to bilateral security cooperation.
The two former diplomats recounted two different points of view, saying that for many Americans, Iraq is one of the original eternal wars, and the United States’ withdrawal from Iraq comes in line with President Trump’s vision aimed at reducing the overall American military presence in the Middle East, but on the other hand, this historic event will be celebrated by many Iraqis and Iranians, who have long sought the departure of American forces from Iraq and the region.
They explained that the American invasion that overthrew the "dictator" Saddam Hussein led to the removal of Tehran's biggest "regional enemy" and paved the way for Iran to increase its influence in Iraq economically, politically and militarily.
In view of the Iraqi militias supported by Iran and their growth in strength and number in the years that followed, the authors of the article saw that the current Iraqi Prime Minister, Ali al-Zaidi, had a difficult task before him, as he had pledged to disarm these militias. Romanowski and Taylor said that although this task is difficult, it is "not impossible, if the United States and the major regional powers are prepared to play a long-term role in Iraq."
The article left the door open to the possibility of an American return again, noting that the motivation behind continuing to engage in Iraq goes beyond the mere “lives and money” that the United States has already spent there, and relates to long-term American strategic interests. For more than a decade, every American president has tried to move towards Asia and reduce the United States’ focus on the Middle East, but every administration found itself “forced to return” to the region as a result of regional crises.
They cited the return of American forces “to defeat ISIS, or the regional escalation that followed the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, or the American-Israeli war against Iran. The United States has permanent interests in the Middle East that have kept it and will continue to keep it involved in the region.”
It is noteworthy that Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist armed group, is classified by Germany, the European Union, the United States and other countries as a terrorist organization.
They believed that the occurrence of this withdrawal in the midst of a long-term American conflict with Iran "highlights the same reasons that call on the United States not to withdraw from Iraq."
They considered that the attacks launched by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias throughout the period of this war “are an important reminder that what is happening in Iraq is not limited to Iraq alone, whether it is the first Gulf War, the Iraq War, or the war against ISIS,” as Iraq’s stability has always had a broader regional impact.
With its population of 45 million and its vast oil and gas resources, Iraq will be a major player in the region’s economy and can be a force for stability (...) or instability.”
Some in Washington may argue that Iraq's loss to Iran should be accepted, and say that continued American engagement will only yield limited gains. “But we don't see it that way,” Romanowski and Taylor say. “Even as Iraq fades from the American consciousness, the United States remains at the forefront of the concerns of the Iraqi political class, which views it as a pivotal counterweight to Iranian expansion and a critical economic lifeline. The United States does not need thousands of soldiers to change the balance of power,” according to the article.
The two former diplomats stressed the need for Washington to play a role in Baghdad's future during the next phase, adding to the state of confusion revealed by Trump's statements regarding the end of the conflict for which the American forces were present in Iraq, as he spoke of the necessity of not engaging in wars that drain his country's human and material resources at a time when it is waging a war with Iran that is approaching its seventh month amid the lack of clarity of the mission's objectives.
Iraq after withdrawal... testing the state and challenging the militias
For its part, Baghdad considered the end of the American mission an indication of the growing strength and sovereignty of Iraq. Iranian-backed groups also welcomed the withdrawal, but it raised concerns among other Iraqis, especially in the Kurdistan region, where many fear the resurgence of ISIS, as well as more attacks by groups linked to Iran, which may become more emboldened after the departure of US forces.
On the other hand, questions are being raised about the future of the Iraqi militias that the Baghdad government has sought to disarm, without achieving significant success so far, in light of Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, Secretary-General of the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades, one of the strongest, most well-armed and influential armed factions within the map of pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, speaking of the victory of “the victorious Islamic resistance in this round with the American occupation, and the victorious one is the one who imposes his conditions on the enemy.”
His words may have been evidence of his lack of intention to hand over weapons, as he said: “Many countries in the world have more than one army and more than one military system, and the basic decision in peace and war must be one, or at least agreed upon, which is acceptable to us.”
Observers believe that the main test for the Zaidi government will remain the extent of its ability to build cohesive national security institutions, relying on political consensus internally, away from the international umbrella, amid fears that the regional scene will turn into an open arena for the influence of uncontrolled weapons, which makes the previous chaos scenarios possible to be repeated at any time.
