US Troops Exit Iraq After Two Decades, Raising Questions About Baghdad's Ability to Secure Itself

The final contingent of American military personnel has departed Iraq, closing a chapter that began with the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. The withdrawal marks the end of more than twenty years of continuous US military involvement in the country, a period that reshaped Iraq's political order, its security forces, and its place in regional geopolitics.

The departure was noted in Baghdad against the backdrop of the reconstructed leaning minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul's old city, where a large Iraqi flag was displayed to mark the occasion. The symbolism was deliberate: the mosque and its famous "Hadba" minaret had been destroyed during the fight against the Islamic State group, and their restoration has become a emblem of the country's efforts to rebuild after years of conflict.

The US military first entered Iraq in 2003 with the stated objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power. That mission was accomplished quickly, but the aftermath proved far more difficult. The dissolution of Iraq's existing state structures and the resulting power vacuum set off a cycle of violence that would consume the country for years, weakening its institutions and fracturing its social fabric.

Washington's role in Iraq has long been the subject of competing narratives. Supporters of the intervention argue that American forces helped prevent the complete collapse of the Iraqi state, particularly during the campaign against ISIL, when US airpower and advisors were critical to reversing the group's territorial gains. Critics, however, contend that the invasion itself created the conditions for the chaos that followed, including the sectarian bloodshed of the mid-2000s and the eventual rise of ISIL.

With the coalition's mandate now concluded, the government in Baghdad faces a fundamentally different security environment. Iraqi forces will be responsible for territorial defense, counterterrorism operations, and border security without the direct support that US troops have provided for two decades. The question of whether those forces are prepared for that responsibility is now central to the country's political debate.

The US-led anti-Islamic State coalition operated in Iraq for years, providing air support, intelligence, training, and logistical assistance to Iraqi units. That partnership was widely credited with helping to defeat ISIL territorially in 2017, but it also tied Iraq's military planning closely to American capabilities. The removal of that scaffolding raises practical questions about surveillance, air power, and rapid-response capacity that Iraqi commanders will now have to address on their own.

In an episode of Al Jazeera's "Inside Story" dedicated to the withdrawal, presenter Dareen Abughaida examined whether Iraq can handle future security challenges without foreign military backing. The program gathered three analysts to assess the implications of the US exit and to consider who benefits from the new arrangement. Their discussion reflected the broader uncertainty surrounding the transition.

Ahmed Rushdi, president of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation, offered a perspective rooted in Iraqi domestic politics and institutional capacity. Kenneth Katzman, a senior fellow at The Soufan Center who specializes in Middle East geopolitics and US foreign policy, brought an understanding of Washington's strategic calculations to the conversation. Abdullah Alshayji, a professor of political science at Kuwait University with expertise in US politics and Gulf security, provided a regional viewpoint on how Iraq's neighbors are likely to read the American departure.

The timing of the withdrawal comes amid a volatile regional landscape. Iraq sits between Iran, Turkey, and the Gulf states, and its internal stability has implications for each of them. The program's framing also referenced recent regional developments, including questions about Turkey's military presence in northern Iraq and broader tensions involving Iran, suggesting that Baghdad's security challenges are inseparable from its neighborhood.

One of the central questions raised by the withdrawal is who stands to gain. Iran, which has deep political and militia ties inside Iraq, may see the exit of US forces as a strategic opening. Sunni Arab states and Gulf monarchies, by contrast, may worry that a reduced American footprint could allow Tehran to expand its influence further. Turkey, which has conducted its own operations in northern Iraq against Kurdish militants, will also be watching closely.

For ordinary Iraqis, the end of the US presence is likely to be met with mixed feelings. Many have long resented foreign troops on Iraqi soil and view the withdrawal as a restoration of sovereignty. Others fear that without American air cover and intelligence support, Iraqi forces could struggle to contain a resurgent ISIL insurgency or to manage the array of armed groups that operate outside state control.

Iraq's security forces have grown considerably since 2003, and they demonstrated real capability during the war against ISIL. Yet they remain dependent in key areas, including intelligence gathering, aerial surveillance, and precision strikes. Building those capacities indigenously will take time and significant investment, at a moment when Iraq's economy faces pressure from fluctuating oil revenues and persistent governance challenges.

The political dimension of the withdrawal may prove as consequential as the military one. Iraqi leaders must now manage relationships with Washington, Tehran, and regional capitals without the buffer that a US troop presence provided. That balancing act has defined Iraqi politics for years, but it will now be conducted in a new environment in which American leverage is reduced and local actors may feel emboldened.

The "Inside Story" discussion ultimately did not produce a definitive answer to the question posed in its title. Instead, it highlighted the range of variables that will determine Iraq's trajectory: the cohesion of its political class, the loyalty and discipline of its security forces, the behavior of its neighbors, and the extent to which the United States remains engaged diplomatically and economically even after its troops have gone.

What is clear is that a defining era in Iraq's modern history has ended. The United States arrived in 2003 with ambitions to transform the country and the wider region. More than two decades later, it has departed, leaving Iraq to confront its future largely on its own terms. Whether that future is stable or turbulent will depend on decisions made in Baghdad far more than on those made in Washington.