What does the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq mean for the region? | Sources & Methods

Hey there, it's Miles. Today, we wanted to bring you some reporting from our friends at sources and methods, MPR's podcast about national security. At the beginning of this month, U.S. forces fully left Iraq for the second time since the 2003 invasion. Post Mary Louise Kelly talks with MPR's Jane Araf and Baghdad and Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman to reflect on this moment. Here it is. I think we have to not ignore that irony that the U.S. came in here to topple a dictator and it ended up opening the door for a run. The U.S. military is pulling out of Iraq again. For the second time since the 2003 invasion, the last American troops have left what is left of the U.S. footprint in the Middle East. This is Sources and Methods from MPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. Each week on this podcast, we walk, sometimes run through the weeks biggest national security stories. We do that with the MPR reporters out and about in the world covering them. This week, that is International Correspondent Jane Araf who is in Baghdad. Hey Jane. Hey there. And MPR Pentagon correspondent at large. Tom Bowman, here with me in the studio in to be a specific studio 42 in Washington, higher. Pentagon reporter in exile. It's great to be here. Let's timestamp this. It is just past noon. Eastern time makes it a little after seven in the evening for you, Jane. Yes. And it's dark and we're hearing what I think are fireworks because people are celebrating. What we hope are fireworks considering you are in Iraq. Speaking of being in Iraq, one of the reasons you are there and in Baghdad is what we expected would be a whole lot of pomp and circumstance and fanfare this week to mark the withdrawal of US troops. How did it all go down? Yeah. Kind of a lot less fanfare than we expected. I mean, in 2011 when the troops last pulled out, there actually was a ceremony. And those of us who had covered the troops embedded on the front lines were able to go and see them casing the colors, lowering the flag, getting on planes and leaving. And it was kind of, you know, it was a kind of closure for them for Iraq because it acknowledged that something big had happened, right? This time, not so much. We were told there would be a ceremony that would be Tel Aviz live. It wasn't Tel Aviz live. In fact, you know, the soldiers had already pretty much left. There were about 1,500 of them recently and that went down to a few hundred and then that went down to nothing as they left before the deadline. So it was, have to say, kind of anticlimactic. So few, I'm comparing that to the height of the war when there were something like 170,000 troops there. So just to spell out the timeline, 2003, obviously the US, went in, started fighting this war in Iraq. Those troops all eventually left by 2011, 2014, they went back to fight ISIS. And so that's what is pulling out now. Tom, say a little bit more about what they have been doing because Iraq has so faded from the front pages, from the headlines from top of mind here in the US. Right. Well, ISIS was defeated in 2019. The Islamic state came to an end. And then the remaining ISIS folks just kind of scattered in Iraq and also in Syria. I made several trips to both Iraq and Syria during the last number of years in Herbil where the US had a large presence and they would send troops and aircraft and green berets and delta force into Syria to work with the Kurds to go after the remnants of ISIS. But there are still sleeper cells in both Iraq and also in Syria. That was where I was going to go. If the, if the fight against ISIS was one in 2019, what were you as soldiers still doing there in 2016? It was going after remaining cells and remnants and trying to make sure they don't come back. Correct. And they're still there. And now it's going to be up to the Kurds or maybe the Turks. There are thousands of Turkish forces up there. And the US has moved its anti-ISIS fight to Jordan. But people I talk would say, well, you can't really fight ISIS from afar. You really have to be on the ground. So that's going to be a challenge. People I talk would say, you know, how do you move quickly if you have intelligence to go after some of their sites? Can you do it with drones? Can you do it working with the Turks or with the Kurds? That's going to be a challenge moving forward. Yeah. And just quickly before we get back to what's happening in Baghdad this week, when you say the US has moved the anti-ISIS fight to Jordan so that they can fight what's going on in Syria, what is that actually look like? This is a US base that will host troops. Well, there are a number of US forces in Jordan. I went to a green beret facility there. It's in this like, you know, cavernous area. But also a Jane knows there are a couple of bases really close to the Syrian border that can be used for, let's say, if the US wants to go forward a little closer to the Syrian border, they can use those small bases. Yeah. So Jane, back to you and how this week's development is playing in Iraq. I know there are a range of views on the US finally, finally, maybe finally, finally pulling out of Iraq. Start with people who are celebrating this. You managed to crash a celebration by a few militias who are very happy to see the back of US troops. Those are some of the, you know, the key militias, the most powerful ones, the ones that have taken credit as part of what they call the Islamic resistance for attacking the US embassy, for attacking other US positions. And so they held celebrations. There were fighters and just playing ordinary young men who were chanting, we drove out the occupiers with our weapons. And so here's what's happening in Iraq going forward. Okay. The US is left, but there's still lots of weapons here. And what the government is trying to do and the Iraqi Prime Minister, his Prime Minister, President Trump, he will do is to disarm those militias. So those militias, the key ones, some of the most powerful ones, are not going to disarm. And they've made that clear, but what they are going to do, and this was new in a statement on Thursday today, they said that they will stop attacks, which is a pretty big deal. However, that's not giving up arms. We spoke to a former foreign minister Hoshar Zabari, and he pointed out that unless they give up their heavy weapons and we're talking about some major weapons, it doesn't really mean much, but also they have to get something for it. They have to be given political positions or something else for giving up all those weapons. And what looks, does that look likely at all, that they will be given some kind of political role in Iraq going for? There are some talks going on. And as we've seen, you know, in the history of the U.S. in Iraq, the U.S. makes accommodations. It has all the way since 2003. It has to. So it does look like they're not going to be giving up weapons. They're Iran-backed militias. We have to make that clear. And they're not going to be giving up weapons if they don't get something in return. The threat of being bombed so far and actually being bombed both by the U.S. has not been enough. So there will have to be some sort of give and take that looks like. What about ordinary Iraqis that you were talking to, Jane? People not in militias, not caring around big weapons, but just what is the take among people on the street? What's the conversation about the U.S. is finally out of Iraq? Yeah, you know, like so much in Iraq, it really depends on what your situation is, what happened to your family, whether you were one of the families of more than 200,000 civilians who were killed during the U.S. invasion, occupation, and the civil war that followed. So in general, I think there is a sense of relief. No one wants to feel like they're foreign forces on their land. But certainly in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, there's a lot of worry. And when I've talked to ordinary families here, you know, it's been a while since they've seen U.S. soldiers in the streets years, in fact. So mostly they just want to live their lives. They want to have peaceful lives and they get a two-day holiday today. So there are a lot of families out and about at the zoo, all sorts of places. And that is kind of an example that Iraq actually has stabilized to a certain extent. Yeah. When I say the U.S. is finally out of Iraq, obviously a diplomatic presence remains. There's a U.S. embassy. I mean, does the U.S. have influence going forward in terms of who's running Iraq? How decisions get made, aside from the military footprint, what does the U.S. role look like or not? They absolutely do. You know, they have other levers of power as, you know, both diplomatic and political. President Trump in kind of that winding statement that he made about the withdrawal of U.S. forces referred to the Iraqi Prime Minister having won a landslide election. Well, he didn't win a landslide election because there was no election. You don't get elected Prime Minister. It's a political deal and then you're appointed. But he came to power because President Trump backed him. And that has been a key feature in politics. And that's something that U.S. will presumably continue to exert pressure on in that field. But also, we can't forget that all of Iraq's billions of dollars in oil revenue actually runs through the U.S. It goes through the Central Reserve Bank. Sorry, the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. And it means that any time the U.S. wants to, it can turn off the taps on the dollar supply to Iraq. Interesting. So economic levers there too. Just one last question to wrap up this portion of the conversation. And it's this, you know, Tom, you and I covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after 9/11. When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, finally, it seemed as though so much of what the US had built there had tried to achieve their came undone within a matter of days, the government collapsed, the military collapsed, Afghans who helped Americans like you, trying to report from there were targeted by the Taliban. Girls yanked out of schools, women told, no, you can't go work outside the home anymore. There's just so much undone. I mean, this is to either of you, but maybe take a swing out of first Jane. What is left of the whole American project in Iraq? Gosh, that's a great question. If by American project, you mean that idea that they came in here to instill democracy, I mean, there's, you know, talking about Iraq is always, always, always difficult because there are assumptions, there were sweeping assumptions made that led to the war and everything that happened after. And the goal of the American project, quote unquote, kept shifting in the many years that it unfolded, so there's that. I think you also have to, what's the legacy of the war in Iraq, right? Number one, why did the US go there in the first place? They thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, particularly as a nuclear program. Well, he didn't, they got rid of it many years earlier, but he was bluffing because he wanted to keep Iran, his enemy on their back feet. So the Americans cherry picked or use faulty intelligence, you know, because they thought he had nuclear weapons, and they thought it would be easy. Remember, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said we'll be greeted with candy and flowers. Well, that did not happen. There was an insurgency. And I want to read something about the nuclear program, too. What US thought was a nuclear program. What are you reading from here? This is Steve Call. You know him quite well. He wrote this terrific book called The Killies Trap, and I highly recommend it to everybody. There was a nuclear scientist. So the Synoms Nuclear Scientists defected CIA interviewed him. We're going to put him through a polygraph. And one of the CIA operatives, after they realized his guy was telling the truth that there was no nuclear program, he says, quote, we made a terrible mistake. Jane, I'll give you last word. Jump in. I was just going to say, I think we have to sort of not ignore that irony that the US came in here to topple a dictator. And it ended up opening the door for a run. And we're seeing that influence in all sorts of ways. And it has now started a war against Iran. The other thing is, I was here in the 90s when UN weapons inspectors were here looking for those weapons of mass destruction that the US thought were here and others at the time thought were here. And they were very clear that they weren't finding it. The US wouldn't listen to them. And the US obviously still is not listening to the United Nations. But I think part of this whole legacy is kind of a history of going at a loan or going at a loan or persuading others, strong arming others to join you. And now we're seeing the consequences. Let's take a break. When we come back, the changing shape of US involvement in the wider Middle East. That's ahead. On sources and methods from NPR. So US operations in Iraq have come to a close again. Meanwhile, the war next door in Iran shows no sign of coming to a close anytime soon. That war has seen other countries in the region targeted countries that host US bases. And all of this is reshaping America's military footprint in the Middle East. Tom, um, start right there with Iran and what kind of opening this leaves for Iran's proxy militias. Um, we will recall that back in the early days of this US and Israel led war on Iran. One of the original goals was we want to weaken eliminate Iran's proxy forces across the Middle East. No, there's strength in no question. Um, we've talked about Iraq in particular where they're you know, Iranian back militias. Now, what are they going to do going forward? Could they take pot shots at the American embassy, let's say, what about threatening, you know, US citizens there? They run once the US to get out of the Middle East. So that could be a particular problem, especially in Iraq. But I think the wider Middle East, we've seen serious damage to US bases in the region, particularly Bahrain, where the fifth fleet is headquartered. They've taken all the dependence out of there in most of the service members. So what's the way forward? It could be just sort of a skeleton crew there, which is there now. But are they going to maintain something in Bahrain? And also other parts of the Middle East could wait. Well, they maintain troops there. The Pentagon, because of the damage done to some of these bases, they say we may not rebuild some of these bases. And also some of these countries, Jane probably knows is better. Do we really want the US in our country? We've been attacked by Iran. Some of them may start making deals with Iran if they see the US start leaving the Middle East. Jane, pick up that threat. Tom's talking about what the calculation may look like from the Pentagon's perspective. What about from some of these countries, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, that host US troops? Are they rethinking whether that's a great idea going forward? I think they're definitely rethinking. If you look at the damage that was done to not just their oil facilities, their ability to generate oil revenue, but actually the image, the impression that they could weather pretty much anything. I mean, the image of Dubai now is not what the image of Dubai was just a few months ago. And I think, you know, one of the things that we're looking at here is that juxtaposition of what Iran has always called the axis of resistance, which includes Iran-backed groups here in Iraq and the Yemeni Houthis who have made huge gains against Saudi Arabia. There's been a shake up in all sorts of ways. Saudi has said there have been attacks here from militias. The militias deny it. They say, okay, maybe it's splinter groups from here, but it has set back perhaps years of relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. So there's a lot in play right now. It's so fascinating. I mean, Iran for a while has articulated the goal of wanting the US to get out of the Middle East. And it looks like we're going to see out 2026 with that being closer to a reality than it was at the beginning of 2026. All right, here's my next question. If the US presence in the Middle East is shrinking, who's looking to step in and fill that void? Turkey, from this perspective, from this location that I'm in now, Turkey is very well positioned to fill part of the void. On one hand, it has agreed with the Iraqi government that it will shut down some of its bases. On the other hand, Iraq now is discussing with Turkey air defense systems. In times when there have been disputes between the US and Iraq, some Iraqi officials have said, you know, we have other friends. We can look to other countries. And I think we're going to be seeing a bit more of that, but keeping in mind that the US can actually keep a country like Iraq on a fairly tight leash in terms of who it trades with. I want to stay with Turkey for a second, because one of our colleagues, Hideo Al-Shalchi, who is now based for us in Istanbul, lucky for us, because we're all benefiting from her reporting. She had a story about how the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sat side-by-side. She painted this picture of them. They were all at wooden desks in Mecca, and they signed, as she described it, a historic pact, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, which combines Saudi Arabia's oil money. Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, Turkey's expanding ambitions and defense industry and features something that looks kind of like NATO article 5, that an attack on one of them would be an attack on all of them, and that they will promise to share intelligence and capabilities. The Turkish leader, Roger Ptyap Erdogan, was speaking recently at a youth conference and talked about the significance of these countries coming together. So I'll paraphrase there, but he's talking about these three countries coming together with God willing, send a signal to the Islamic world. That's how they're thinking about this stuff. I think that's really significant. The Turkey clearly is a much brighter rising power here, much like Iran is. It's almost a parallel with what's going on in NATO. The NATO countries are looking at each other and say, you know what, can we rely on the U.S. anymore? Maybe we're on our own now, but we have to work with each other. Maybe you're seeing the same thing over in the Middle East now. But in that alliance, that brand new alliance has been tested fairly recently and found a bit wanting in terms of what Saudi Arabia believes. They were being attacked by Yemen, and they apparently went to Pakistan and said, okay, time to pay up. You promised to defend us, and nobody jumped to their defense. So it seems like there's a very high bar there, as there is for NATO as well, right? In terms of activating a defense pact like that. Can I just ask the basic question? You know, when we say the U.S. keeps pulling, keeps Just getting pulled back into the Middle East. Why? Like, just spell out what is the US interest in staying involved in keeping a big footprint in the Middle East these days? Oil and Israel, right? I mean, Israel is at the center of almost every conflict we're covering. I've come from South Lebanon where that conflict is continuing to not just simmer, but boil over in all of these countries, some of whom have made peace with Israel. There are immense fears of Israeli expansionism. And one of the dynamics here is that the US is seen as unfailingly defending Israel and it's causing instability according to a lot of regional leaders that might be changing. Let's take another quick break. When we come back, Pete Hegseth outlines the next phase of his effort to reshape the Pentagon. It involves testosterone testing. We're going to hear Tom Bowman's take, keep listening, sources and methods from NPR. We're back and we're going to stick with the US military, but turn our attention to Quantico, Quantico, Virginia, where yesterday Wednesday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth delivered what he called a "steat of the force" address. Tom, according to Pete Hegseth, what is the state of the force? He says it's much better now. The warrior ethos is back. Gone is DEI. Gone is woke. Gone is lawyers, you know, tying the hands of commanders. What I found kind of curious listening to him was, okay, you've been in like roughly a year and a half. You've completely turned the whole Pentagon around. If anything, the Pentagon is in disarray. Pete Hegseth has got rid of a lot of senior generals and admirals. There's really a sense of fear in the Pentagon, even the retired community, Mary Louise. Some people I want to talk with retired say, I don't want to go on the record. They're worried about taking your call. Correct. And some are still working for the federal government, some are in industry, and some are afraid that Pete Hegseth is going to go after them. I spoke with a retired four-star officer who got Canadian citizenship, which-- Hold on, a retired four-star American officer who got Canadian citizenship. And he could because one of the parents is from Canada, but he said he was worried about investigation into him. He was worried about an IRS investigation. He was worried about being called back on active duty. And I'm just sitting there sipping my coffee. I didn't say anything, but I was absolutely stunned. But go back to his speech the speech yesterday. Are there specifics where he says it's all fixed? It's so much better. Like, what's the evidence that he-- Well, again, there was really no evidence, but there was a substantive part of his speech. They're going to create a four-star drone command, which makes a lot of sense in something called Project Aging Court, which will develop more drones. The name comes of course from the 15th century battle between Britain and France, where the Longbow was used to quite great effect. Cutting edge technology. So you could say the drone is the Longbow of this century. So that makes a lot of sense. And also he came up with another project, which will be run by Elon Musk and also a former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, looking at the future of warfare. So that did make a lot of sense, right? That's a fascinating pairing. Elon Musk and Newt Gingrich. I would love to be in that room. Yeah, there you go. He also touched on something that Pete Hegseth loves to touch on, which is attacking the press. A free press is, of course, important. But partisan activism that intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission that they're undertaking is fundamentally anti-American. It's sick. It's a national betrayal. It's treason actually. Treason. What do we know what he's talking about? Well, he said, you know, the press is actually talking about US bases in the region, you know, giving the enemies some comfort of a sense of what's going on. He doesn't like some of the reporting about morale of US troops. But with the bases, which is interesting, he said, you know, they're not really telling even the Hill Congress much about the damage to these bases. And it took a senior naval officer to say, we're not going to go back to Bahrain any time soon because the place is destroyed. And you're right, as far as morale, well, you know, we've been talking to a lot of sailors, their families, you know, who spend a lot of time on the Lincoln. morale is low in particular places like like the ships that have been gone so long. And they've been suicides and attempted suicides. Our colleague Steve Walsh down in Norfolk has done some terrific reporting on that. So we're not smearing them. They are coming forward and telling their stories. Their families are coming forward and telling our stories. So we're not smearing anybody. You're reporting what you're hearing from people serving on the front lines trying to serve this country. Just a quick update on your status because we are reporting on the situation at the White House with the White House pool, which is changing day by day, sometimes hour to hour. You still can't report from inside the Pentagon. And a couple of weeks, it'll be one year since we have opened out of the Pentagon. And it's important to note with what Secretary Hegseth said about the press, he hasn't had a briefing since May 5th. So if you think there's a problem with us, why don't you come out and we can have a back and forth. And you can tell us what you think is going on. All right, I'm going to cheer us all up by saying it is time for Ocent. Open source intelligence, public, nevertheless, revealing bits of information. And I'm going to kick us off this week. With this, the other day, a message popped up in my inbox from a 14 year old boy in England named Bo, he wanted to say hi. And he was asking if I knew about Grandpa Spy, which it emerges is an account on Instagram, Tiktok, in which Bo, again, age 14, asks his 86 year old grandpa questions, which is a ritual that becomes a lot more interesting once you figure out that Bo's grandpa is David Bickford, a senior figure in British intelligence. He was the top lawyer for MI5 and MI6. And their posts are Bo asking D, as he calls him, I guess, D for David, asking his granddad things like, how do spies pass messages to their handlers? What makes a person betray their country? How do you know if you're being followed? Here's the latest. So D, which spy movie is the most realistic James Bond or Mission Impossible? James Bond. James Bond or the Born Identity? Oh, the Born Identity. Completely agree for whatever that's worth. And they go through, they consider a few more movies, and then they get to the canon of the great John McCurray. Tinketaylor or Slow Horses? Oh, Slow Horses is incredibly good, although they go for Tinketaylor. Tinketaylor or the spy who came in from the car? Oh, definitely the spy who came in from the car. That is the nearest of all to what really goes on. But if you go to the very first car in that film, Richard Burton walks right up to the white line that divides East from West and East from West Berlin. No spy would ever have done that because he would have immediately been spotted. They go on from there, but they never managed to surpass the spy who came in from the cold. I agree. I love Slow Horses. It is really, really well done. And there's a new season out and I think speaking of new things and speaking of Berlin, 14-year-old Bo also wanted to alert me that his grandpa writes "spy thrillers" and has got a new one coming out this month called the Berlin truce. Oh, good for him. Go Bo and go grandpa. Tom, what do you have for Austin? Well, we've been talking about Secretary Hegseth. He has mounted a review of women in combat, ground combat, and infantry artillery and armor 10 years after they were allowed into these areas. He's sending investigators out to a number of bases around the country, and they've already gone to Fort Benning to look at Ranger School because there were charges that, "Oh, women have it easier than men. There's not one standard for both." What they found out was, "No, there is only one standard for men and women that has not changed. And 190 women have passed Ranger School, which is very arduous training." With the exact same. I guess the literal bar were doing pull-ups, the exact same standard as the men. All right, go women. Jane, what do you have? Yeah, I guess I've been thinking a lot about, you know, the pull-out of the US troops and how one comes to grips. And by one, I mean, Iraqis and Americans who served here. With everything that went on before, you know, all the incredible loss, all of the, frankly, really terrible memories, along with good ones as well. And I was speaking to someone who is an extraordinary young entrepreneur, Ali Al-Maksumi, when he founded this tourism company called Bill Weekend, which just means on the weekend. And I was asking him what sort of American tourists he gets because he does get Americans, all sorts of tourists. And he started telling me about what his clients called healing trips. And he described a couple of the guys that they had taken U.S. military veterans who came back to Taji to Fallujah to see what was left of it. And it was very surprising and it was crying. He said like here I lost a lot of friends. But at the same time he was happy to see Fallujah, 100% change. Fallujah, it was a battle zone. But now it's beautiful streets, beautiful buildings. The rover just flowing up with the green and music. So I guess when we talk about the legacy that the U.S. left behind, well there's very much the mistakes that were made, the incredible destruction, the damage. But it's also, I suppose, the ability in some sense to create a new future. It's like the Vietnam vets going back, you know, yeah, or the World War II vets who, you know, for many years have made it back to see the battlefields they fought on and revisit as you said, Jane, both the good and the bad. Thanks for sharing that. That was in Pierre International Correspondent, Jane Araf in Baghdad. Thank you, my friend. Good night. Thank you. And Pierre Prinogon Correspondent, Tom Bowman here with me in Washington. Thank you, Tom. Always a pleasure. That was a recent edition of the MPR Podcast Sources and Methods. It's available everywhere you get your podcasts. I'm Miles Parks, and come back tomorrow and join us for another episode of the MPR Politics Podcast. Thanks for listening.