How Maliki and Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.
The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmaneuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.
A central element of the Maliki-Iran strategy was the common interest that Maliki, Iran and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shared in ending the U.S. occupation, despite their differences over other issues.
Maliki needed Sadr’s support, which was initially based on Maliki’s commitment to obtain a time schedule for U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.
In early June 2006, a draft national reconciliation plan that circulated among Iraqi political groups included agreement on "a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq" along with the build-up of Iraqi military forces. But after a quick trip to Baghdad, Bush rejected the idea of a withdrawal timetable.
Maliki’s national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaei revealed in a Washington Post op-ed that Maliki wanted foreign troops reduced by more than 30,000 to under 100,000 by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of "most of the remaining troops" by end of the 2007.
When the full text of the reconciliation plan was published Jun. 25, 2006, however, the commitment to a withdrawal timetable was missing.
In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as "a near-permanent presence" in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.
Maliki immediately sent Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Washington to dangle the bait of an agreement on troops before then Vice President Dick Cheney.
As recounted in Linda Robinson’s "Tell Me How This Ends", Zebari urged Cheney to begin negotiating the U.S. military presence in order to reduce the odds of an abrupt withdrawal that would play into the hands of the Iranians.
In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would "eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty", according Bob Woodward’s "The War Within".
Maliki’s national security adviser was also seeking to protect the Mahdi Army from U.S. military plans to target it for major attacks. Meeting Bush’s coordinator for the Iraq War, Douglas Lute, Rubaie said it was better for Iraqi security forces to take on Sadr’s militias than for U.S. Special Forces to do so.
He explained to the Baker-Hamilton Commission that Sadr’s use of military force was not a problem for Maliki, because Sadr was still part of the government.
Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."
Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.
But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.
A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.
In mid-March 2007, Maliki ignored pressure from a personal visit by Cheney to cooperate in taking down the Mahdi Army and instead abruptly vetoed U.S. military plans for a major operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki ordered an Iraqi army assault on the dug-in Sadrist forces.
Predictably, the operation ran into trouble, and within days, Iraqi officials had asked General Suleimani to intervene and negotiate a cease fire with Sadr, who agreed, although his troops were far from defeated.
A few weeks later, Maliki again prevented the United States from launching its biggest campaign yet against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. And again, Suleimani was brought in to work out a deal with Sadr allowing government troops to patrol in the former Mahdi Army stronghold.
There was subtext to Suleimani’s interventions. Just as Suleimani was negotiating the Basra cease fire with Sadr, a website associated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai said Iran opposed actions by "hard-line clans" that "only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers".
In the days that followed that agreement, Iranian state news media portrayed the Iraqi crackdown in Basra as being against illegal and "criminal" forces.
The timing of each political diplomatic move by Maliki appears to have been determined in discussions between Maliki and top Iranian officials.
Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.
In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.
In the end, however, Bush administration officials realized that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme, had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.
(Inter Press Service)
Read more by Gareth Porter
- SOF Troops Still in Wardak as Joint US-Afghan Probe Continues – March 11th, 2013
- Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony – February 25th, 2013
- Bulgarian Revelations Explode Hezbollah Bombing ‘Hypothesis’ – February 17th, 2013
- Iranian Bomb Graph Appears Adapted from One on Internet – December 13th, 2012
- News Media Misled by IAEA Data on Sensitive Iranian Stockpile – November 20th, 2012





the lion
December 16th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
The US would have got a Korean Type Sofa Agreement if they prosecuted Soldiers under the USMJ for serious Crime that they committed in Iraq and they were seen to.
US soldiers are convicted of crimes in Korea and japan, and whilst they are not liked there is at least some sort of Justice.
The refusal to Prosecute was the reason that Iraqis refused to budge.
It is in fact a War Crime for an Occupying power to write laws exempting itself from criminal Prosecution from the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, that includes Murder and rape of civilians, and to add to that the US Supremes ruled in Hamdin that at the least all prisoners caught on the Battlefield were in fact Civilians!
skulz fontaine
December 16th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Checkmate!
MvGuy
December 16th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Really good article seems to present this coup in a way I can easily understand… and provides the inside details… I have been posting comments attributing the inability of the U.S. to get an immunity deal to the very quiet [lately] Moktada Sadr … BUT it is NOT over till it's over…. 1/1/12..?? In any case, win or lose….. It seems Sadr has played his few cards very carefully and effectively… The man appears to be quite a nationalist statesman….. Just what Iraq needed, just when she needed it…!!!
Jaime
December 16th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Lol
Mike
December 16th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
In the not too distant future Moktada al Sadr will emerge as top man in Iraq and enter into a mutual defense alliance with Iran.
That will show just how misguided our invasion of Iraq has been.
contraviews
December 16th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
The original plan was to stay in Iraq more or less permanently. I remember Bush saying that this was quite 'normal' as the US has troops staying in S. Korea, Japan, Gemany for many decades. However the next step for the Maliki government should be to get rid of the (16,000 ??) foreign mercenary security contractors (a de facto army) who are supposed to guard the embasy fortress and other strategic points and stop US drones hovering over the skies of Iraq. No the war and violence are not over for a long time to come.
Johnny in Wi.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Excellent Summary. It is very informative.
baz
December 16th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
iran deserves to win iraq after fighting an 8 year long imposed war with half a million dead in which iraqs bathist regime was supplied by, financed and helped by virtually every country on earth including the US who helped saddam aquire anthrax and mustard gas through dutch, french and german companies which he used to murder a hundred thousand iranians and tens of thousands of iraqi kurd and shia, with US blessing
way to go iran, your patience paid off and in the end might turned out not to be right!
mark
December 17th, 2011 at 12:29 am
Unfortunately, there are loopholes in our departure agreement the size of a missile silo. Please note that Washington will retain a super-sized and super secret embassy in Baghdad loaded with thousands ofspooks and 'contractors'. They will quietly continue our war on Iraqi independence.
Ironically, true Iraqi self-determination died with Saddam Hussein.
turkce
December 17th, 2011 at 2:36 am
gonna be a mini cold war between the US and Iran. No wonder they're itching so bad to attack Iran, and depose that regime, along with Assad I suppose, although they don't want the Shia taking over there as well. Fact is, the Shia are the majority in Bahrain, and have put down mercilessly. The Shia would love to take down Saudi as well. The expansionist Shia that is. The people of Iran would just as well be out from under that rotten religious dictatorship, and that's what the US is hoping for. Problem is, if they attack Iran, that will only harden the regime.
Saddam is starting to look like a pretty good deal after all. So stupid as well, to depose a guy we could have brought back on payroll, just because George had to best his daddy, and Cheney and the other thinktank morons thought they could turn it into Germany. Fact is, maybe they could have if they had done what Marshall did, and secure arms depots, keep the Iraqi army intact, not use contractors, build infrastructure, etc. But Repubs are a notoriously greedy/cheap bunch, and they ruined it after they took it on. Such an immoral act, as well as stupendouly badly strategized. You'd have a hard time coming up with a more self-destructive act.
Duglarr
December 17th, 2011 at 3:16 am
The story can be written more simply than this: the US conquered Iraq, but for domestic reasons, called it a liberation. The conquered people then called them on it and said, well, if we run our own affairs, please leave. The fuming Neocons clearly had a point: they didn't promote the conquest of Iraq to then just up and give the country back to the people who live there! Who didn't get the memo?
But the official line had to be maintained to the end. Of course the Iraqis and Iranians managed it brilliantly, to the point where the American people hardly even noticed.
Hoodwinked at the beginning, taken to the cleaners at the end. And none the wiser for it.
curmudgeonvt
December 17th, 2011 at 7:04 am
And when the Iraqis and the Iranians sign their mutual defense treaty and then shut down the airfields, and the roads into the country from Kuwait/Jordan/Turkey, how long do you suppose the larders in the "Fortress" will be able to sustain 16,000+ mouths? Just as the Pakistanis are now standing on the life-line transport routes into Afghanistan, when the Iraqis shut off access to Baghdad it will be end-game for the US Occupation.
As Mr. Porter points out, the neocons who got us into this fiasco screwed the pooch at both ends of the effort – they blew the beginning as well as the end. And these are the same folks who are currently pleading for us to invade Iran.
Dieter
December 17th, 2011 at 7:06 am
1. I still wonder what the role of the U.N. was in this affair.
2. With regards to the U.S. Embassy that will soon become a huge source of trouble. El Sadr has already announced that he considers nearly all of the security personnel members of the U.S. Armed Forces who should be out of the country. Several lawmakers have demanded that the size of the U.S. embassy personnel should be the same as that of the Iraqi Embassy in Washington. In principle the Parliament of Iraq has control because it can pass a law that restricts the number of diplomatic visa that the government of Iran can grant our government.
curmudgeonvt
December 17th, 2011 at 7:13 am
George Bush has been saying since before he left office that HISTORY will define his Administration – long after he's gone. Well George, wrong again. Looks like the truth about your adventure is coming out real quick. I wonder how your acolytes are going to spin this.
richard vajs
December 17th, 2011 at 7:39 am
Interesting question – what the hell will our ten thousand bureaucrats at the Baghdad Embassy do all day? I doubt that the Iraqi Government will want them nosing around their offices. The average Iraqi hates our guts (or should), so these American bureaucrats will not be able to just drift around the country "observing conditions" or "spotting trends". Forget about "attending cultural events" – they won't be invited. So what are they going to be there for, except as a stupid way of saying, "We're still here so we guess we won after all!" Billions will be wasted every year. And for this, the federal debt will continue to go up.
jeff_davis
December 17th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Getting rid of the US monster is something that must be done slowly and carefully: temp it with something it wants, then ask for a few more soldiers to leave.
The current temptation — the "carrot" that makes the US think it's going to get something it really, really wants — is the promise of multi-billion dollar defense contracts: f-16s, tanks , what have you. I will believe the underlying premise of this article when Maliki (1) cancels those contracts and (2) orders the departure of all those "security contractors" garrisoned at the US embassy. When that happens, Americans will finally get the picture, along with a long overdue dose of the Arab version of the old "shock and awe".
Breathtaking, how vastly smarter the Iraqi and Iranian leadership is than the US "Keystone Cops". Living in a tough neighborhood will do that to you.
Patience is key.
jeff_davis
December 17th, 2011 at 9:26 am
You need to go back and do some homework. The Assad regime — the Alawite sect — is Shia.
A substantial majority of the Iranian people are quite happy with their "rotten theocratic" regime. (Don't believe Western propaganda based on Western sponsored protest/destabilization. Political opposition exists, but it is composed primarily of the prosperous-but-now-out-of-power quisling/comprador class of the former US puppet, the Shah)
Rule of Thumb: If the US govt doesn't like someone — Castro, Chavez, the Ortega brothers, Evo Morales, Gaddafi, the Iranian theocrats, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc — they are almost certainly good guys, faithful to their own people and to those the world over struggling to be free. If the US govt likes someone — and here the list is too long, but just a sample: Mubarak, the Saudi royals, the Bahraini royals, Georgia's Saakashvili, etc — they are unquestionably suck-ups to the US and disloyal to their own.
Learn "The Rule" and save yourself a lot of time and confusion.
jeff_davis
December 17th, 2011 at 9:35 am
And a whole sh*tload poorer and diminished in respect.
jeff_davis
December 17th, 2011 at 9:49 am
I'd like to see the Iraqis position those big concrete blast walls around the entrances to the US embassy to make the same kind of "gauntlet" that we now see at TSA security checkpoints and US border crossings. Checkpoints where every vehicle in a diplomatic convoy is searched and every individual's person and papers are inspected with microscopic thoroughness. Then repeat the process at multiple checkpoints along the convoy's route.
Harrassment? You bet. But all thoroughly legal. All for the protection, of course, of foreign diplomatic personnel, wink wink.
Watson
December 17th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Bush may have thought that US troops remaining in Iraq as they do in Japan, S. Korea and Germany would be quite 'normal.' However, in Japan, S. Korea and Germany, US troops do NOT have immunity from local prosecution, as I am sure Iraq duly noted. Definitely a difference there.
I am curious if Iraq will give immunity to mercenaries.
Watson
December 17th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Another interesting(?) question: If Bush had not negotiated and signed the SOFA, would American troops be leaving Iraq now or at any time during the Obama administration? My acrylic ball (can't afford a crystal one anymore) says no.
pendulum
December 17th, 2011 at 11:10 am
because the exemption was illegal in international law, Maliki should declare it void and start on a list of war criminals to be posted and brought to trial if possible
richard vajs
December 17th, 2011 at 11:27 am
To answer my own question, the ten thousand bureaucrats will do what garrison soldiers always do : sleep a lot, have marathon pinochle/poker games, play "grab-ass", cruise the Internet (especially the porn), drink a lot, and generally wait for payday or the glorious day they get to leave.
You betcha I want them to cut my old age Social Security check to pay for that.
MvGuy
December 17th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I WONDER IF THERE IS A HELIPAD ON THE ROOF…???
ccrider
December 17th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
my apprehension is that withdrawal from Iraq may just be to get troops out of harms way before an attack on Iran; they are not leaving theater
smithy100
December 17th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Such popycock.
The witdrawal of US forces from iraq opens the door for an israeli attack on iran and gets the us off the hook.
davidgrayling
December 17th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
I've made application to enter my local lunatic asylum. It's got to be better than trying to live in this crazy world!
http://www.dangerouscreation.com
klyde
December 18th, 2011 at 6:36 am
You know the war party has control of our discourse when a writer on an supposedly anti-war web site refers to al-Sadr as anti-American. Please tell me what makes him anti-American. If it is the fact that he wanted to end te murderous illegal US occupation of his country then I would think most of the people of Iraq are anti-American
Joseph Zrnchik
December 18th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Good. Then maybe people will FINALLY understand just how stupid it was to go to war against Iraq. They made Iran stronger and now want Americans to support another war. The lies and propaganda are flying fast and furious.
baz
December 18th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
the fact is that iran is winning iraq and other countries in the region with "soft power"; something WE obviously know nothing about!!
Our military and economic strength has made us lazy and arrogant. We have no diplomacy skills in DC and our leaders always expect immediately results at the expense of longer term interests. As such, we have resorted the the principles of "might is right" and "do as i say, not as I do" which have succeeded in P!$$ing off half the world and lost us all credibility for obvious reasons
Iran, on the other hand has been patient and been preaching adherence to international law and morality. Say what you want about the regime…They may be controversial domestically but certainly no more so than most of the regimes WE support like the murderous Al Saud. But their idea of reconciliation among muslims and relations based on mutual respect is resonating within the arab world and slowly winning them friends. even amongst sunnis.
we could learn something from them..
Aarky
December 18th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Another poster realizes that the Persians invented chess.
Aarky
December 18th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
AH, but wait! The US is trying to get an agreement for immunity for all the independent contractors in Iraq. The counter move by the Iraqis is already starting. Members of their Parliament want the US to reduce their Embassy size to the same as the Iraqi Embassy in Washington.
someguy
December 18th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
This explains a whole lot: Why usa started to talk of iran being evil again… its pitiful attempt to blame 9/11 on ahmadinejad. Hah it seems america is feeling like a sore loser unable to use its brutish strength. Iraqi oil will end up belonging to iran despite the billions of taxpayer $$ poured into the iraq war. With pakistan giving americans the finger, usa is going to lose grip on afghanistan as well. Good riddance to the occupation.
usa is to iran as Ares is to Athena. For those who do not know Greek mythology, Athena and Ares are both war gods. Ares is god of brute strength, Athena is goddess of tactics/strategy and subtlety. Whenever the two fought Athena always won because she used smarts rather than muscle. That is what we have here. usa has brute military strength, but iran and maliki used their cunning. Sry americans you are no longer the top dogs.
Valerianus
December 18th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Sounds similar to the strategy used by Helmut Kohl to get Germany re-united, playing the asinine George H. W. Bush and the even more asinine Margaret Thatcher against Gorbachev. The US/UK dynamic duo, which viciously opposed German reunification, decided they would take the lazy route and let the Soviets veto the idea. That way, Bush/Thatcher reasoned, they could let the Soviets be the bad guys while they pandered to the Germans' wounded pride to keep the occupation scam going. They smarmily gave their assent. Unbeknownst to the Western occupiers, however, the Germans had worked out a deal, consisting of an enormous bribe, with the Soviets. You could hear the jaws drop and hit the floor at the White House and No. 10 Downing Street when Gorbachev signed off on reunification.