You Kill A Man, You Lose A Country: Not A Good Bargain

The US-led coalition Says It Is Withdrawing from Iraq -but letter was "a mistake"!

The United States-led military coalition against Islamic State said today 6 January 2020 that it was pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the next few days and weeks, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

"Sir, in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement," read a letter from United States Marine Corps Brigadier General William H. Seely III, the commanding general of Task Force Iraq.

The authenticity of the letter, which was addressed to the Iraqi Defense Ministry's Combined Joint Operations Baghdad, was confirmed to Reuters independently by an Iraqi military source. Yesterday Sunday 5 January, Iraq's parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the country in a nonbinding resolution amid outrage over the drone strike in Baghdad that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of al-?ashd ash-Shaabī -Iran-backed militias in Iraq.

The resolution as we reported yesterday 5 January asked the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces more than four years ago to help fight the Islamic State. But the path forward is unclear, and in Iraq’s deeply divided terrain, with an acting prime minister and raging proxy war between Iran and the U.S., ending America’s 17-year military presence in Iraq is a risky undertaking, and won’t be easy.

Iraq was barely starting to recover from a devastating war against the Islamic State when a mass uprising against the country’s ruling elite erupted on October 1, forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi two months later. There has been no parliamentary agreement on a replacement yet.

A pullout of U.S. troops could cripple the fight against IS militants and allow the extremists to make a comeback. Militants affiliated with IS routinely carry out attacks in northern and western Iraq, hiding out in rugged desert and mountainous areas. Iraqi forces rely on the U.S. for logistics and weapons in pursuing them. An American withdrawal would also enable Iran to deepen its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority Shiite country.

https://bit.ly/37DUXfU

Comment: Is there still a chance to preserve an agreement on training Iraqi forces? I don't have the answer to that at the moment. But let's see how we reached that stage and who was Al-Quds Force commander Major-General Qassem Soleimani. Here is an attempt to set the record straight on who was the man and how his death could have a serious impact on the situation in the region.

The above letter was ..a mistake

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says letter suggesting US would withdraw troops from Iraq was a 'mistake' (!)

The top US general, Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, now says letter suggesting the US would withdraw troops from Iraq was released by mistake and poorly worded, telling reporters "that's not what's happening."

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley sought to address the confusion that began after the leak of aletter to the Iraqi government from US Command in Baghdad suggesting US troops would be withdrawn from the country.

"That letter is a draft. It was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released ... (it was) poorly worded, implies withdrawal, that is not what's happening," Milley said.

"It's an honest mistake ... it should not have been sent," he added.

https://cnn.it/37KyKNs

Comment: Suppose we send a declaration of war to Iran then say it was an honest mistake. Is this comedy or tragedy?

Update: In a phone call yesterday 9 January 2020 with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi asked the United States to send a delegation to Iraq to set up a mechanism for troop withdrawal from the country. This fully justifies the title of this article.

On the late M-G Qassem Soleimani: Setting the record straight

I am not going to publish here a biography of the late Major-General Qassem Soleimani, but will limit myself to making a few observations:

(1) Contrary to media assertions, Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC's Quds Force, wasn't part of the Iranian leadership, but had access to it, including to Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as an adviser. He reported to the IRGC commander, Hossein Salami, promoted to major general, and appointed as the new commander of the IRGC on April 21.

(2) Soleimani was comparatively well-known in Iran, but his killing has now made him a martyr, a hero in the Iranian pantheon, so to speak. He is better known in Iran dead as he was when alive.

(3) It is among Shia communities outside Iran that he was the best-known and the most popular. In Iraq his popularity stemmed mainly from his participation in the fight against the Islamic State. When towns and cities under the control of the IS started to be fall, some were retaken by the US and the Iraqi Army, some by the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army, some by ?ashd ash-Shaabī (PMU) and the Iraqi Army. The decision about who would do it depended mostly on the ethnic-religious composition of the town or city that needed liberating. Of course the US was the only actor with substantial air and missile assets.

(4) Characterizing Soleimani as the world's foremost terrorist is propaganda rather than fact. He was a military commander who practiced his own brand of hybrid war, which did include terrorism. The Quds Force's intelligence branch eventually replaced the ministry of intelligence in the handling of illegal actions abroad (as the latter had been compromised in a series of extrajudicial executions in Iran), such as the failed Washington DC attempt against them Saudi Ambassador Adel al Jubair. But most of its terrorist actions were carried out by proxies such as Hezbollah or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or allies like Hamas. Under the direction of Soleimani, dozens of Americans were killed in Iraq, mostly by Iraqi proxies, using for instance sophisticated roadside bombs provided by Iran rather than IEDs. This did call for punishment, but not punishment of ourselves.

(5) There is no question that Soleimani, now replaced with Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani, was a bad actor and his death should not be mourned. But there is the wider issue of the consequences of an US strike carried out against the wishes of the Iraqi government than apparent justice. As I said in the International Relations Professional Discussions group on LinkedIn minutes after the taking down of Soleimani, the US may have killed a man, but it is losing a country: not a good bargain. There is no reason to believe that with Ghaani at its head, after a time, the Quds Force will be a lesser danger to US and other troops and innocent citizens. Threatening Iraq with sanctions as Trump did when flying aboard Air Force One, poured additional gasoline on the fire, added insult to injury. PM Abdul Mahdi may be left but no choice but to sign the act that will terminate the agreement with Iraq on the hosting of US forces in Iraq. As to paying for the US base, that's typical Trump.

(6) The killing of Soleimani against Iraqi wishes in Iraqi sovereign territory will prove a victory for Iran. They will see Soleimani's death as the ultimate sacrifice for advancing or strengthening the Iranian regime's interest in the region. President Trump once more shot himself in the foot. This president, who is ready to surrender Afghanistan and abandon some African countries to terrorists and spends more energy attacking our allies, politically or through trade, than our enemies, is overall far greater though different a danger to US and western national security, to democracy in Eastern European, than Soleimani ever was in the Middle East.

As the Soufan Group writes under the title, "Soleimani Killing Cripples U.S. Position in Iraq",:

"Whereas a renewed ISIS threat inside Iraq would not benefit Tehran, a U.S. departure from Iraq would consolidate Iran’s control over a secure corridor of territory from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, a strategic land bridge. A pro-Iranian Iraq would give Tehran unfettered access to numerous facilities and locations from which its Shia militia proxies in Iraq could help Iran project power into eastern Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states. Iran has already provided its Iraqi allies with short-range ballistic missiles for this purpose, and at least one attack on a Saudi oil pipeline in mid-2019 was launched from Iraq. Iran’s leaders are willing to risk an ISIS resurgence in service of the broader objectives of avenging Soleimani’s death and demonstrating that the Trump administration’s decision to strike him was a major strategic miscalculation."

https://bit.ly/2uimfKk

Trump Threaten Iraq with Sanctions, Doubles Down on Targeting Iranian Cultural Sites!

President Trump yesterday evening 5 January 2020 doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, and threatened “very big sanctions” on Iraq if American troops are forced to leave the country (this was written before the letter detailed at the beginning of this article).

Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Trump reiterated to reporters the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he said the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran if there were a response to Suleimani’s death.

Some, he tweeted, were of “cultural” significance. Such a move would be a war crime under international law (Resolution 2347 (2017)) on the protection of cultural heritage in war, a resolution for the passage of which the US deployed major efforts), but Trump said Sunday5 January that he was undeterred.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

This is the first time in living memory that a US president knowingly threatens to perpetrate war crimes. No Iranian crime could justify such a step. And, no, Iran is not "allowed" to "torture and maim our people", "to use roadside bombs an blow up our people": such actions breach international humanitarian law and laws of war.

The destruction of Iran's considerable cultural-historic heritage would be a loss for Iran, but also for the US (just visit the Smithsonian) and the world at large. One does not respond to barbarity with barbarity. I do not know whether Trump is serious, but if he is then it is hoped that senior US military officials will refuse such an order: the Uniform Code of Military Justice posits that illegal orders should not be obeyed. The reference is implicitly to US law, but of such untoward events were to happen, this would be an occasion to test whether it is also about refusing orders that disobey international law to which the US is bound. The Senate ratified the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2, making it the law of the land too. Art 25 of that charter posits that all Security Council resolutions are binding on all member states, without exception. Fortunately however we are not yet there and hopefully we never will be.

Would you destroy this?

“If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq,” Trump said. Threatening Iraq at this juncture can only strengthen the resolve of those who want the US out as a result of the unauthorized strike on Gen Solemeini, who while being a very bad actor whose death we won't regret per se, was legally in Iraq.

https://nyti.ms/2ZTFAgE

[Addendum: Esper contradicts Trump on targeting Iranian cultural sites: We 'follow the laws of armed conflict'

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper yesterday 6 January contradicted President Donald Trump by asserting the US would not target Iranian cultural sites amid rising tensions after a US strike killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani.

"We will follow the laws of armed conflict," Esper told CNN Monday. When pressed if that meant not targeting Iranian cultural sites, Esper replied, "That's the laws of armed conflict."

The comments come one day after Trump reiterated his threat to target Iranian cultural sites in a conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One.

Two senior US officials told CNN Sunday there was widespread opposition within the administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran should the United States launch retaliatory strikes against Tehran. "Nothing rallies people like the deliberate destruction of beloved cultural sites. Whether ISIS's destruction of religious monuments or the burning of the Leuven Library in WWI, history shows targeting locations giving civilization meaning is not only immoral but self-defeating," one of the officials told CNN.

"The Persian people hold a deeply influential and beautiful history of poetry, logic, art and science. Iran's leaders do not live up to that history. But America would be better served by leaders who embrace Persian culture, not threaten to destroy it," they added.

"Consistent with laws and norms of armed conflict, we would respect Iranian culture," the second senior US official said.

https://cnn.it/39My9MU

Time to remember Ike's Monument Men!]

Read also: "Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he didn’t see specific evidence that Iran had planned to attack 4 U.S. Embassies", https://bit.ly/35LK9Lp

As I said yesterday and repeated here, we may have killed a man but we are losing a country as an ally. The trade off is clearly to Iran's advantage. Our European allies while condemning the Kataeb Hezbollah attack that killed a US contractor and the assault on the US Embassy, declined to approve the killing of Soleimani and urged both Iran and the US to de-escalate.

Pompeo publicly complained in the Hannity show of the lack of support of "the Brits, the French, the Germans." Once again the Trump seems to be as much at war with our allies than with our enemies. The events of the past two days are catastrophic for the US standing in the Middle East and in spite of the loss of a top general, represent a self-inflicted wound for the US and a victory for Iran.

That is at least my view.

Update: Meeting at Ambassador's level on Monday 6 January to address current tensions in the Middle East and implications for NATO’s training mission in Iraq, the Alliance confirmed it had temporarily suspended training activities on the ground. S-G Jens Stoltenberg added that NATO was prepared to continue training and capacity-building when the situation permits, emphasizing that the Alliance remains strongly committed to the fight against international terrorism. The Secretary-General said:

"At our meeting today, the United States also briefed on the regional situation, following recent attacks on coalition forces in Iraq, and the strike against General Soleimani.

"For years, all Allies have expressed concern about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the wider Middle East region.

"We agree Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon.

"At our meeting today, Allies called for restraint and de-escalation. "A new conflict would be in no-one’s interest.

"So Iran must refrain from further violence and provocations."

"We share concern about Iran’s missile tests.

Regarding the strike against Gen. Solemeini, Stoltenberg said: "This is a US decision. It is not a decision taken by either the Global Coalition nor NATO. But all Allies are concerned about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region, Iran’s support to different terrorist groups. And of course, we are extremely concerned about the recent attacks we have seen against civilian energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, or against Coalition bases in Iraq – bases which are important for our efforts to fight international terrorism in Iraq and in Syria.

"The US provided the rationale behind the action against General Soleimani. And we had several briefers from the United States, from the State and from Pentagon and they briefed and explained to other Allies why they took this action against General Soleimani. I will not go into the details of that briefing. I will leave that to the United States. But we value and appreciate the briefings provided by the United States. I think this provides, or once again shows that NATO is a platform where European Allies, North American Allies, are able to come together and address security concerns for all of us.

https://bit.ly/36IuSML

In other words criticism of Iran's nefarious activities but no endorsement of the strike against Gen. Soleimani and no judgment on the details of the US intelligence briefing.

[Read also: "Why did the Pentagon ever give Trump the option of killing Soleimani?", by Alice Friend, Mara Karlin and Loren DeJonge Schulmanin The Washington Post, https://wapo.st/2tNZoGu ]

Post-script: U.S. Warns Iraq It Risks Losing Access to Key Bank Account If Troops Told to Leave

The Trump administration warned Iraq this week that it risks losing access to a critical government bank account if Baghdad kicks out American forces following the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general, according to Iraqi officials who spoke to The Wall Street Journal.

The State Department warned that the U.S. could shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the New York Fed where international oil sale revenue is kept.

Iraq, like other countries, maintains government accounts at the New York Fed as an important part of managing the country’s finances, including revenue from oil sales. Loss of access to the accounts could restrict Iraq’s use of that revenue, creating a cash crunch in Iraq’s financial system and constricting a critical lubricant for the economy.

The prospect of U.S. sanctions against Iraq arose after the Jan. 3 U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport. The Iraqi parliament voted Sunday 5 January to urge Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi to work toward the expulsion of the approximately 5,300 U.S. troops.

In response to the nonbinding resolution, which was backed by the prime minister, President Trump threatened to impose sanctions against Iraq if the U.S. was forced to withdraw its troops.

Abdul-Mahdi moved ahead with those plans this week, requesting the U.S. agree to talks to plan the safe withdrawal of American troops, according to an Iraqi description of a Thursday call with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo disagreed with Iraq’s version of his call with Abdul-Mahdi and said the U.S. would continue its Iraq-based campaign against the Islamic State extremist group. The State Department declined to comment on the U.S. warning to Iraq about its New York Fed account.

The warning regarding the Iraqi central bank account was conveyed to Iraq’s prime minister in a call on Wednesday 8 January, according to an official in his office, that also touched on the overall military, political and financial partnership between the two countries.

The potential economic and financial fallout is weighing on Iraqi officials as they try to address the presence of American troops without provoking a backlash. In recent days, Iraqi officials have stressed the need for friendly relations with the U.S., even as pro-Iranian militias and politicians exert pressure to expel American troops.

“Whenever you have any amicable divorce, you still have the worry about the children, pets, furniture and plants, some of which are sentimental,” said a senior Iraqi politician.

Abdul-Mahdi has said the departure of U.S. troops is the only way to avoid conflict in Iraq because the U.S. doesn’t trust the country’s security forces to protect its troops.

The financial threat isn’t theoretical: The country’s financial system was squeezed in 2015 when the U.S. suspended access for several weeks to the central bank’s account at the New York Fed over concerns the cash was filtering through a loosely regulated market into Iranian banks and to the Islamic State group.

“The U.S. Fed basically has a stranglehold on the entire [Iraqi] economy,” said Shwan Taha, chairman of Iraqi investment bank Rabee Securities.

The prospect of sanctions has unsettled ordinary Iraqis, for whom memories of living under a United Nations embargo during the 1990s are still fresh. Pro-Iranian and other Shiite factions leading the charge to oust U.S. forces from Iraq have sought to reassure the public by telling them Iraq could pivot to China, not a realistic proposition.

An adviser to the prime minister, Abd al-Hassanein al-Hanein, said that while the threat of sanctions was a concern, he did not expect the U.S. to go through with it. “If the U.S. does that, it will lose Iraq forever,” he said.

The New York Fed provides banking and other financial services for around 250 central banks, governments and other foreign official institutions, such as the account owned by Bangladesh from which North Korean agents were able to steal $81 million in 2016, U.S. officials have said.

When Iraq needs hard currency, its central bank can request a shipment of bills that it then distributes into the financial system through banks and currency exchange houses. While the country’s official currency is the dinar, U.S. dollars are commonly used.

The New York Fed doesn’t publicly disclose how much money it currently holds for Iraq’s central bank. But according to the Central Bank of Iraq’s most recent financial statement, at the end of 2018, the Fed held nearly $3 billion in overnight deposits.

Restricting Iraqi access to dollars could cause the dinar’s value to fall, as it did in 2015, which could again trigger a dash for dollars in Iraq as people, companies and banks try to secure hard cash. Such a devaluation could cause broader economic woes as it cuts spending power for workers, companies and the government.

See : https://on.wsj.com/37YrNIB

Comment: President Trump has found a new way to vent his rage: highway robbery. While one may regret as I do the Iraqi decision to ask US troops to leave the country, the fact of the matter is that :

(1) this would never have happened without the ill-advised decision to kill Qassem Solemeini against Iraq's will and in violation of Iraqi sovereignty;

(2) The Iraqi move while regrettable is in line with (a) the Strategic Framework Agreement for a Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation between the United States and the Republic of Iraq, and (2) the Agreement Between the United States of America and Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.

The Trump administration's threat is illegal and should be opposed. It show once more how this administration takes comfort in acting against our allies more often than our enemies.