admin
The Pentagon announced this week that the final U.S. troops and equipment have left Erbil air base in northern Iraq, formally ending the U.S. combat mission inside Iraq known as Operation Inherent Resolve. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell called the exit an “orderly departure” and said it “marks a transition from a wartime coalition mission to an Iraqi-led security effort.” Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al‑Zaidi presided over a handover ceremony and proclaimed a “new phase” for Iraqi sovereignty. That is the news. Now comes the hard part: making sure “new phase” does not mean new trouble for the region or for American interests.
What the Pentagon and Baghdad are saying
The Defense Department and U.S. Central Command framed the withdrawal as the capstone of a phased drawdown that began months ago. Officials point to years of pressure on ISIS that reduced it as an organized military force inside Iraq. The Pentagon says the mission is moving from boots-on-the-ground to a more normal bilateral relationship where the U.S. can still support training, intelligence, and logistics if requested. Baghdad, for its part, celebrated the return of full control to Iraqi security forces and vowed to continue counter‑ISIS operations and disarm non‑state armed groups.
Why conservatives can applaud success — and why they should still worry
Defeating ISIS in Iraq was a real and important achievement. Conservative readers who value a strong military should acknowledge that U.S. troops and coalition partners did necessary work. But a successful campaign does not erase the reality that ISIS remnants remain, and Iran‑aligned militias are still active inside Iraq. Hailing a withdrawal as a victory is fine — as long as we have the honest follow-up plan. Over‑the‑horizon options, intelligence sharing, and training commitments must be clear and credible. Otherwise “orderly departure” risks becoming “strategic retreat” in practice.
Risks ahead and what to watch
Look for three things in the weeks and months ahead: whether Iraqi security forces actually sustain counter‑ISIS progress, whether Iran‑backed militias ramp up attacks, and whether the U.S. locks down a binding agreement for intelligence and rapid support if Iraq asks. Congress should demand clear reporting from the Pentagon on contingency plans and any remaining U.S. capabilities in the region. If the administration expects to pivot without visible commitment to deterrence, conservatives should call foul. Sovereignty is meaningful only if the Iraqi government can protect it against internal and external threats.
In short, the end of Operation Inherent Resolve inside Iraq is a milestone worth noting. It marks a shift from a wartime footprint to a different kind of partnership. But milestones are not finish lines. The United States should respect Iraqi sovereignty and celebrate the gains against ISIS — and at the same time insist on verifiable commitments, continued intelligence cooperation, and contingency options. If we do that, we can honor the service of our troops while guarding against the next round of threats. If we don’t, “new phase” will sound like a very expensive experiment with high stakes. Keep watching; this story is far from over.
