Analysis | A tantrum as symbolic as risky

the decision of The iraqi Parliament to ask for “the withdrawal of foreign forces”, that is to say, of the united States, it is just a tantrum by the us operati

Analysis | A tantrum as symbolic as risky

the decision of The iraqi Parliament to ask for “the withdrawal of foreign forces”, that is to say, of the united States, it is just a tantrum by the us operation that killed general iranian Qasem Soleimani and his right-hand man in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, last Friday. Though it certainly sends a powerful political message, it is a non-binding vote that has also been produced in a context of duress and that can cause serious consequences for the internal security of the country.


The prime minister of Iraq announced his resignation after two months of protests by Thousands of iraqis fired at the general Soleimani while growing the tension about the reaction of Iran to Iraq, a battle field between the US and Iran for regional hegemony

To begin with, it is not clear that Parliament has the power to order the departure of some troops whose deployment had no art nor part. The 5,000 american soldiers in Iraq have nothing to do with the Army that drove Saddam Hussein in 2003 and remained there until 2011. That year, Washington ended the mission by not getting to Baghdad, the total legal immunity for their uniform. Three years later, with the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS) to the gates of the capital, the Government of then-prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, requested military aid to the united STATES to combat it. In that letter does not stipulate nor the date or conditions of withdrawal.

according To the iraqi law, the “parliamentary decisions” (that is what that have been approved by the House this Sunday) have no legal force and do not require the Government to take any action. The president of the Parliament, Mohamed al-Halbusi, has made it clear that the vote is insufficient.

it Is true that the prime minister in functions, Adel Abdelmahdi, has recommended voting in favor of the departure of the troops of the united STATES and said that this would not negatively affect the bilateral relations, he said, were good between 2011 and 2014 despite the fact that there were no american military presence in Iraq. But its temporary from to resign because of popular protests leaves little room to adopt a measure of this magnitude. The own Abdelmahdi has been said before the Camera that you want to find a successor quickly, giving to understand that you will pass the hot potato.

why hot potato if it is a matter of national sovereignty? By the mere fragility of the structure of iraqi politics. Suffice it to say that they have only attended to the vote of 168 mps out of the 329 that has the Parliament; all shi'a least three. Missing the bulk of the sunni arabs and the kurds. In private, some of these have recognized to have received threats from the militias proiraníes in case of daring to vote against it.

For both communities, the presence of the troops of the U.S. not only is a guarantee of safety, but of greater political and economic commitment. Despite what has been claimed Abdelmahdi, many iraqis remember that if relations with Washington were not bad between 2011 and 2014, his absence itself that affected the internal security (the rise of sectarianism under Al-Maliki alienated the sunnis and contributed to the success of the ISIS).

Although few dare to say it in public, there is the fear that the act of Parliament use that as an excuse to the Management of Trump to give the step before that is required formally. That could affect the guarantees americans, development assistance or access to the financial sector. In addition, it is certain that if the US withdraws its troops, the rest of the NATO members involved in the fight against the ISIS or the formation of the iraqi Army, including Spain, also would go.

Updated Date: 05 January 2020, 20:00

You need to login to comment.

Please register or login.