US Forces Complete Withdrawal From Iraq Federal Territory
The Spin
Pro-establishment narrative
The U.S. withdrawal reflects mission success rather than strategic retreat, after sustained progress against IS and years of capacity-building with Iraqi forces. Scaling back large, fixed bases reduces risk while preserving U.S. deterrence and regional rapid-response capability. Security responsibility is transitioning to Iraqi institutions with continued coordination, not abandonment. The drawdown signals confidence in a more efficient, flexible security posture rather than indefinite force presence.
Establishment-critical narrative
The withdrawal from Ain al-Asad marks a victory for Iraqi sovereignty after decades of Western military occupation framed as "stabilization." U.S. control of key Iraqi bases weakened self-determination and entrenched dependency rather than building genuinely independent security institutions. For Iraqis, the handover is a real milestone and a restoration of national dignity long denied. It highlights how Western dominance delayed Iraq’s ability to stand on its own instead of enabling true sovereignty.
Narrative C
Pulling U.S. and Coalition forces out of Iraq risks reopening dangerous security gaps while shifting heavy financial burdens onto Iraqi institutions. Iraqi forces still lack critical air defense and intelligence capabilities, making counter-ISIS operations costly and less effective. Abandoning strategic bases weakens deterrence just as regional instability drives up security expenses. The withdrawal risks trading shared Coalition costs for a far more expensive and fragile Iraqi-only security posture.
