Threats from Shia cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr to reactivate the Al-Mahdi militia have led to renewed questions about the future of US troops in Iraq, writes Salah Hemeid Two days after US defense secretary Robert Gates suggested that American troops could remain in Iraq beyond the 31 December deadline for their withdrawal, radical Shia cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr vowed that he would reactivate the Geish Al-Mahdi, his notorious militia, if the American military did not leave this year. Al-Sadr's stern warning came at a rally of tens of thousands of his followers to mark the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime during the US-led invasion of Iraq eight years ago. Gates, visiting Iraq on the eve of the anniversary, suggested last Thursday that US combat soldiers could stay on past the end of 2011, the date set for the troops' departure in a 2007 security agreement that binds both countries. Gates said the United States would entertain a range of requests from Iraq to extend the US troop presence. "I think there is interest in having a continuing presence," Gates said in remarks delivered to US soldiers at a Baghdad base. "So, if folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we're going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning," he added. After meeting with Massoud Barzani, president of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq on Friday, Gates said that the Kurds were interested in an extended US military presence, though the central government in Baghdad would have the final say on any decision on the future of the troops. Gates's remarks sparked speculation in Washington, as they contradict US President Barack Obama's election pledge that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq by the end of the year. They also come at a time when Washington's involvement in Libya is being met with increasing opposition by many Americans, including policymakers. In Iraq itself, however, Gates's statement fueled fervour as the nation strives to restore calm amid renewed violence that killed dozens across Iraq this week. The comments renewed the debate about whether American troops would leave on schedule by the end of the year, or whether they would stay on in some capacity, though the Baghdad government still insists that Iraqi security forces will be able to stand on their own two feet after the scheduled US departure. For their part, Kurdish officials welcomed Gates's statement. Adel Barwari, a spokesman for Barzani, said that "the extension of the US troops' presence beyond 2011 is important for the sovereignty of Iraq and its unity." "Iraq still faces foreign threats and internal challenges, and the US withdrawal might push it back to square one," he told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper. Sunni parliamentary speaker Osama Al-Nujaifi questioned the Iraqi forces' ability to police the country after the Americans pull out, "while inter-confessional fighting and regional interference continue. Iraq does not have one single warplane, and its army is weak and armed with nothing except medium type weapons," he told a meeting in Prague. Shia Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, however, has reacted to the remarks with studied ambiguity. His spokesman, Ali Al-Dabbagh, acknowledged that Gates had raised the issue in a meeting with Al-Maliki but said that the latter had told him that his government would stick to the original agreement. Two of Al-Maliki's aides, Hassan Al-Seneid and Ali Al-Mousawi, said that any decision on keeping the US troops in Iraq beyond the deadline should be taken "by consensus". Iraqis will now be holding their breath as a result of Al-Sadr's stated opposition to any American troop presence in the country after the end of this year and his threat to send the Mahdi Army back onto the streets should the American troop presence continue. The Al-Sadr group has 42 members in the country's parliament and some half a dozen ministers in Al-Maliki's cabinet. Any withdrawal by Al-Sadr from the ruling coalition could bring down Al-Maliki's already fragile government. Before ordering the militia to lay down its arms and join the political process in 2008, Al-Sadr's men had fought pitched battles with American forces, and there is no doubt that they are ready to resume such activities. Al-Sadr's followers are widely believed to be behind mortar attacks against US military bases in Baghdad and other towns in southern Iraq. The question is why the Obama administration is now apparently having second thoughts about the US troop presence in Iraq, triggering confusion at home and controversy in Iraq itself. The United States currently has six brigades, or some 50,000 soldiers, left in Iraq, these being made up of combat soldiers whose official mission is to offer assistance to the Iraqi army. In addition, about 4,500 Special Forces soldiers are conducting regular combat operations alongside Iraqi counter-terrorism forces. US Ambassador James Jeffrey told reporters on April 1 that the US embassy in Baghdad, already the largest in the world, planned to double in size next year to hold 18,000 personnel, including security, support staff and diplomatic staff outside of Baghdad. Under the terms of the US security agreement with Iraq, American soldiers no longer have the right to conduct unilateral combat operations in Iraqi cities without the prior request of the Iraqi authorities. In explaining Gates's suggestion last week, US officials have cited a possible security vacuum in the country following the final US pull-out in December that could offer an opportunity for a power struggle between rival ethnic and sectarian groups fighting over still-unresolved conflicts, such as the Arab-Kurdish dispute over the oil- rich region of Kirkuk. Officials have also claimed that Iraqi security forces will need US military assistance for many years to come in developing the country's armed forces, particularly the air force and air defense and protecting borders and intelligence gathering. Washington is also worried, US officials say, that sectarianism is continuing to paralyse Iraqi politics, citing the government's failure to name key security ministers more than a year after the country's parliamentary elections. There has also been talk of Washington's being worried by the potential for a social explosion in the country, inspired by the current uprisings in other Arab countries. A further reason often mentioned is US concern about Iran and whether Washington can fully withdraw from Iraq, which has the longest border with Iran, given that the decline in the US military presence in Iraq will increase Iran's influence in the country. Such a conviction is shared by part of the top echelon of the Iraqi government and army, which believes that the country still needs US help, especially in confronting foreign threats. Some of Iraq's neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have stakes in the country's ongoing turmoil, are worried that Iran will step in to fill the vacuum once US troops leave Iraq, increasing Iranian influence in the region. In fact, though, despite the apparent novelty of Gates's remarks there has never been any serious doubt that the US would seek the continued presence of its forces in Iraq after this year is up for geopolitical and strategic reasons and to avoid being seen as having been defeated in the Middle East. The question now is how the Pentagon's suggestion will impact on an already jittery coalition government in Iraq and whether the coalition's uncompromising partners will be able to reach a consensus on the future of US troops in Iraq. Even if Al-Maliki might be willing to ask for an extension to the US troop presence, he will be caught between the hammer of the Kurdish desire to let the Americans stay and the anvil of Al-Sadr, who is threatening to re-launch his militia if they do not leave by the end of the year. Tragically, the end of the US occupation may soon start to haunt Iraqis as the invasion did eight years ago.
