US Withdrawal from Iraq and the Debate over State Control of Weapons

Dr. Iyad Al-Anbar, professor of political science, joins me.

Dr. Iyad, welcome to Al Hadath. According to the official Iraqi acknowledgment, the issue of restricting weapons to the hands of the state requires time. How can Washington come out and say that its withdrawal and that of the coalition from Iraq are linked to ridding Iraq of weapons?

السلاح؟

This is not a new debate, given that the American withdrawal is scheduled for September 30. September 30 will be the final deadline for presence at all bases, and it has already begun.

There is Al-Waleed Base, where the Americans were stationed, and they are no longer present there.

The Americans are now stationed at Harir Base in Erbil, specifically at Erbil Airport. On that basis, I believe this statement is a kind of confirmation that the United States is committed to withdrawing completely and fully from Iraq, and that no weapons remain under any pretext. In return,

it wants to emphasize that this withdrawal must There will be, alongside it, the government's ability to monopolize weapons in the hands of the state. This discussion, up to this moment, as we have been discussing for over a month approximately, has shifted from monopolizing weapons to regulating them, to disarming them, to discussing

these concepts more than we discuss the details and procedures related to monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state. It seems that, according to the statement you cited a little while ago and that was reported by Arab channels,

the government says that sources close to the government say there needs to be more time.

On this basis, I believe September 30 will be a date for announcing a withdrawal.

There will be talk of celebrations and a political achievement having been made, by this government and previous governments, while covering up the fact that resolving the issue of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state is the real problem.

Dr. Iyad, when we mention the date of September 30 for the withdrawal of coalition forces, and at the same time Washington says it does not want to repeat the Afghanistan experience in Iraq, these two The two are incompatible.

Of course, the reality of this statement, and repeating the experience of Afghanistan, is entirely different from Iraq, and perhaps it is an indication or a reminder of the political conflict between Republicans and Democrats.

Perhaps the matter is not very closely related to what is happening in Iraq and U.S.-Iraqi relations, specifically the issue of withdrawal.

There are no bases where the United States could leave its weapons behind so that there could be a withdrawal, like the sudden withdrawal that took place, a withdrawal that involved a great deal of confusion and was held against the Democrats. I think this message is more for the Democrats than it is a domestic message.

We also should not forget, Dr. Iyad, by the way, at least, the U.S. confirmation on more than one occasion that the remaining presence, after reducing the U.S. military presence in Iraq, was for advisory and training purposes and not military entities with U.S. weapons and military equipment.

عسكري أمريكي.

Yes, that is true, but there were these bases.

It is also linked to protection being present at Baghdad Airport's Victoria Base, under embassy protection.

There was a type of weaponry that could be used in simple maneuvers or rapid movement.

Exactly. I think exaggerating the issue of weapons at U.S. bases in Iraq and the U.S. military presence has no credibility in reality, because we're no longer talking about before 2011, when military convoys were passing through the streets for U.S. forces. Now there is no sign, no sign at all, not even military vehicles, at any

military headquarters in Baghdad, Iraq, or any other province, perhaps certain groups for special missions, or even training. I think there was a withdrawal from Al-Waleed Base, which had U.S. personnel to maintain and train F-16s and other American equipment. Even these withdrew.

So I don't think this issue is perhaps a message to Iraq that we will withdraw and take our weapons And a message inwardly that we will not repeat the mistake the Democrats made with the withdrawal that created so much chaos.

All right, Dr. Iyad, you know that some entities have not agreed to hand over the tourists—the weapons, sorry.

And we have begun hearing from the Iraqi government that there are formulations other than handing over weapons that would have these entities merely disclose the weapons in their possession, without handing them over, personally handing them over to the Iraqi government.

This is among the problems that have begun to dominate the Iraqi political landscape. Perhaps it is a kind of maneuver by the political parties, specifically the Coordination Framework, which the former Prime Minister, Mr. Haider al-Abadi, spoke about by saying that the shift from restriction to regulation

is a kind of fallacy being marketed, and perhaps this is the greatest evidence that there is a problem with agreeing to hand over or disarm weapons on the part of the Coordination Framework forces, which are the very same ones She stressed an important point, that she voted for the program

of al-Zaidi's government to restrict arms to the hands of the state, and it adopted this concept. The State Coalition also described any weapon after September 30 as terrorism.

Now, they have begun retreating from these descriptions and boundaries.

Were they dictates from Qalibaf and Qaani, Dr. Iyad?

It seems this is what can be explained. Because the shuttle visits that took place at Qalibaf's level, at the level of Qaani, and at the level of Mohsen Qomi, the Supreme Leader's adviser, as well as other undeclared visits, statements began to differ.

There is really no other explanation. Thank you very much. From Baghdad, Dr. Iyad al-Anbar, professor of political science. Thank you, and all the best.