Discussion on US Withdrawal from Iraq

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.