President-elect Donald Trump in October 2024.
Shutterstock
Now that President Donald Trump has won a second term, he has the opportunity to reorient U.S. Middle East policy from that of President Joe Biden. Out is Biden’s appeasement of Iran. In is “Maximum Pressure.” Out is demonization of Saudi Arabia. In is Trump’s partnership with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Out is the Biden administration’s passive-aggressiveness toward Israel; in are close ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
What is unclear, however, is whether Trump will reverse Biden’s decision to withdraw from Iraq.
If Trump seeks to press his strategic advantage, he should learn the lessons of withdrawals by Presidents Barack Obama and Biden. In 2011, Obama ordered U.S. forces from Iraq. Both Iranian-backed militias and the Islamic State filled the vacuum, necessitating a return of U.S. forces. The human toll caused by the Islamic State’s rise was immense.
Before evacuating Iraq, Trump and his advisors should understand the cost of ceding strategic ground.
While Trump initiated the agreement to depart Afghanistan, Biden’s stewardship of it was disastrous. Beyond the chaos at the Hamid Karzai International Airport and the attack at Abbey Gate that killed 13 American military personnel, the United States lost a forward operating position from which it could project power, gather intelligence, and conduct military operations. Despite assurances to the contrary prior to the withdrawal, the United States is effectively operating blindly in the region, with over-the-horizon counter-terror capability a shadow of pre-withdrawal capabilities. Today, both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State-Khorasan are resurgent in Afghanistan and the Taliban, despite Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s assurances to the contrary, continue to sponsor terror and plot with America’s enemies from China to Iran.
Before evacuating Iraq, Trump and his advisors should understand the cost of ceding strategic ground. Simply put, the United States should remain in Iraq—and not only Iraqi Kurdistan—for the near future.
Critics may condemn the American presence in Iraq as original sin and note that the investment in Iraq did not match the promise of President George W. Bush’s lofty rhetoric. The United States does not have the luxury, however, to fumble the present because it disagrees with the past. U.S. strategists must make policy decisions based on the ground truth at this time.
The fact that the United States has forces stationed in Iraq at low cost and with few casualties should matter. The new administration must ask what the United States would gain from withdrawal. Here, Afghanistan suggests much. By maintaining a presence at key nodes such as the Al Asad Air Base, the United States can avoid creating a vacuum that China, Russia, or Iran would fill. A presence also provides an ability to accomplish strategic and operational outcomes that further U.S. national interests.
The new administration must ask what the United States would gain from withdrawal.
First, a presence would enable the United States to project power in the region through military, diplomatic, intelligence, and informational means. This, in turn, can help deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, thwart Turkey’s aggressiveness toward the Kurds, aid Israel in its defense against Iran and its proxies, and strengthen the existing alliances with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
Second, a presence can help the American military to thwart attempts by Iranian-backed militias and political factions inside Iraq to undermine the Iraqi government and sow discord.
Third, a forward presence provides logistics and planning hubs to launch military operations against enemy forces that might not be deterred. Bases can offer support, and a higher return on investment compared to maintaining multiple carrier groups offshore. They also allow for continuous operations that can minimize an adversary’s ability to mass forces.
Fourth, a prolonged American collaboration can exert influence over the Iraqi government and population over time. Economic cooperation can lay the groundwork for a lasting alliance with a West-leaning Iraq in the heart of the Middle East.
None of these outcomes is guaranteed, but abandoning Iraq guarantees the opposite is true. To leave Iraq is to forfeit any ability to conduct operations and achieve strategic goals in the region. The question is not whether Trump will bring home American troops; it is whether he will empower Iran and China at America’s expense.
An accomplished executive, Eric Navarro has led teams of up to 1,000 in various sectors including military operations and strategy, and technology deployment. As a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, he served two combat tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom and led full-spectrum missions globally, including in the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Pacific. His academic credentials include a BA in Writing & Film from New School University, an MBA from NYU Stern in Management & Finance, and an MS in National Security Strategy from National War College. A published author, Mr. Navarro’s book God Willing chronicles his Iraq experiences with a focus on US intentions and misconceptions in the Middle East. His insights have been featured in the Washington Post among other leading publications. An esteemed public speaker, he has presented at the Library of Congress and appeared on Book TV.