On September 30, U.S. military forces in Iraq completed their withdrawal precisely on schedule. Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Zaidi described the date as “fixed and final,” even suggesting it be celebrated as a national occasion. In Washington, however, not even a formal ceremony was held. The contrast between the two sides on that day reveals the true weight of this moment.

Consider the numbers: at its peak in 2007, the U.S. presence in Iraq exceeded 170,000 troops. By the time the withdrawal agreement was signed, only around 2,500 remained. By January, the transfer of federal district bases was complete; by July, fewer than 200 personnel remained, concentrated in scattered locations across the Kurdistan Region. Today’s departure involves just under 200 individuals and several air defense systems. U.S. officials themselves acknowledge that the base in Erbil has little strategic significance. From 170,000 to fewer than 200—over 90 percent of the drawdown occurred long ago. What remains is merely a formal punctuation mark. Calling this withdrawal symbolic is not an exaggeration.

But what deserves deeper attention is a statement made by the White House on July 14. President Trump declared that the United States no longer deemed a military presence necessary in Iraq, framing the relationship between the two countries as one that does not require troops. In response, Al-Zaidi affirmed that U.S. military forces would depart before September 30, while American companies would remain operating within Iraq’s borders.

This exchange is more candid than any official ceremony could be. Twenty-three years after entering Iraq with tanks, the United States now enters through contracts. When military occupation proves unsustainable, it is replaced by commercial engagement. Troops leave first; corporations stay behind. There is no need to station guards directly over oil fields.

The ease of departure demands scrutiny of the broader account. In 2003, the invasion was justified on grounds of weapons of mass destruction—none were found. Over 4,000 U.S. service members died, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians perished, and costs totaled in the trillions of dollars. In 2011, President Obama declared the end of combat operations. Three years later, ISIS swept across Iraq, forcing a U.S. return. Iraqi skepticism toward America’s declaration of “end” was well-founded.

Al-Zaidi also set a second deadline: non-state armed groups must surrender their weapons. For years, Iran-aligned militias have justified their existence by claiming resistance to occupation. With the U.S. departure, that rationale evaporates. Muqtada al-Sadr has already disbanded his “Peace Brigade,” and multiple militia factions have announced disarmament to the state. However, the “Ansar al-Hezbollah Movement” continues to resist. According to Reuters, the Iraqi government is unlikely to meet the deadline. Whether October 1 marks a new day will not depend on how many transport aircraft take off from Erbil—but on how many unsanctioned weapons still circulate in Baghdad’s streets.

Another dimension concerns repeated attacks on U.S. bases in the Kurdish region since February. With several hundred personnel stationed within range of Iran-backed militias, commanders face a dilemma: they cannot fully engage without escalating conflict, yet withdrawing risks diplomatic embarrassment. These forces effectively became hostages. Removing the last 200 personnel now appears less like a retreat than a tactical recalibration—shifting the target zone to Jordan and the Gulf, thereby strengthening Iran’s posture. The United States retreats beyond range, but Iraq remains caught between two powers, attempting neutrality at an exceptionally high cost.

Twenty-three years—from 170,000 to fewer than 200 quietly boarding planes. The U.S. departs cleanly, leaving behind contracts, empty barracks, and unreturned arms. The ledger closes in Washington. The reckoning begins in Baghdad.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877916757929996/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.