US Troops Complete Withdrawal from Iraq After More Than Two Decades

The final contingent of American military personnel has departed Iraq, bringing an end to a US armed forces presence that stretched back more than twenty years. The departure marks a significant turning point for a country that has been shaped profoundly by foreign military intervention since the early 2000s.

American forces first entered Iraq in 2003 as part of an invasion aimed at toppling President Saddam Hussein. That operation quickly achieved its immediate objective, but the aftermath proved far more complex than its architects anticipated. Rather than a smooth transition to stability, Iraq descended into a prolonged period of factional bloodshed and insurgency that devastated its infrastructure and social fabric.

Over the years that followed, the American role evolved considerably. What began as a combat mission gradually shifted toward training, advising, and assisting Iraqi security forces. At various points, Washington surged troops back into the country to counter emerging threats, most notably the rise of the Islamic State group, which seized large swaths of Iraqi territory in 2014.

Analysts have long debated the net effect of the US intervention. On one hand, American military power is widely credited with preventing the complete disintegration of the Iraqi state during its darkest moments. On the other hand, critics argue that the invasion itself unleashed destabilizing forces that Baghdad has struggled to contain ever since, including sectarian militias, entrenched corruption, and repeated cycles of political paralysis.

With the coalition's mandate now concluded, the question of whether Iraq can manage its own security has moved to the center of regional debate. Al Jazeera's Inside Story program examined this issue with a panel of specialists, including Ahmed Rushdi, president of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation, Kenneth Katzman, a senior fellow at The Soufan Center who focuses on Middle East geopolitics and US foreign policy, and Abdullah Alshayji, a political science professor at Kuwait University who studies American politics and Gulf security.

The discussions reflect a broader uncertainty about what comes next. Iraqi forces have spent years receiving equipment and instruction from international partners, and Baghdad insists its military and counterterrorism units are prepared to operate independently. Yet the country still confronts a range of internal and external pressures that could test those capabilities.

Domestically, Iraq must contend with the lingering influence of armed groups that operate outside the formal security apparatus. Many of these factions are tied to political parties and have complicated relationships with the central government. Integrating them into a unified command structure, or neutralizing those that refuse, remains an unresolved challenge.

Political cohesion is another concern. Iraq's power-sharing system has often produced fragile governments and slow decision-making, which can hamper rapid responses to security emergencies. Without the stabilizing presence of foreign troops, some observers worry that rival blocs may resort to brinkmanship or violence to advance their interests.

Regionally, Iraq sits at the intersection of competing powers. Neighboring states, including Turkiye and Iran, have their own security priorities inside Iraqi territory, ranging from counterinsurgency operations to support for allied militias. The withdrawal of US forces may alter the calculus for these actors, potentially creating new openings or new frictions.

The economic dimension cannot be overlooked either. Iraq's revenues remain heavily dependent on oil exports, leaving its budget vulnerable to price swings and limiting funds available for reconstruction and military modernization. A weaker fiscal position could undermine efforts to build self-reliant armed forces.

Some experts suggest the United States may continue to assist Iraq from a distance, through intelligence sharing, arms sales, and training programs conducted outside the country. Others caution that such arrangements are no substitute for on-the-ground presence when crises erupt suddenly.

For ordinary Iraqis, the departure of foreign troops is a moment of both hope and anxiety. Many welcome the end of an era defined by foreign occupation, viewing it as a restoration of sovereignty. At the same time, memories of past collapses and the persistence of militia violence make it difficult to feel fully secure.

The Iraqi government has publicly expressed confidence in its ability to protect the nation, framing the withdrawal as evidence that the country has matured. Whether that confidence is justified will only become clear in the months and years ahead, as Baghdad faces its first major tests without the coalition's backing.

Who ultimately benefits from the American exit is likely to be contested. Regional rivals may see opportunities to expand their influence, while armed factions could feel emboldened. Alternatively, a successful Iraqi transition could strengthen the state and reduce the space for non-state actors, offering a more stable future for the country and its neighbors.