(by Andrea Pinto) The US military leaders in Iraq have informed their Iraqi counterpart that the troops US preparations are beginning to "leave" the country. Brigadier General William Seely, head of the US task force in Iraq, wrote a letter to the Iraqi chief of joint operations, viewed by the AFP. The Iraqi parliament, in reaction to the killing of the Iranian general Qasem Solimani, had voted in favor of the departure of foreign troops in the country. Pentagon chief Mark Esper said, however, that there are no plans for withdrawal from Iraq: "the US will send B-52s to their Indian Ocean base to respond to any retaliation from Tehran." Apparently the letter below would be a draft work never started.
What happens to Italians located in the US bases? The press writes detailing the overnight transfer operation, which took place in a hurry.
At 20.30 the eviction is almost completed: at the airport the American helicopters are ready to move the Italians away from Baghdad. The precautions to be taken before takeoff this time are extraordinary. Nobody says it explicitly but every aircraft, in these hours, is a possible and even simple target to hit.
The Defense General Staff, in agreement with NATO leaders, has decided to transfer all the men involved in the training operation of Iraqi security forces. The American base, which until yesterday evening also hosted about fifty carabinieri, had become excessively dangerous: targeting already on Sunday night and too exposed to the risk of further attacks. "Even today, one of the Italians trusts - we feared to end up in the sights again and we spent hours reinforcing security measures".
At 19.30 Italian the rate of Italian military was transferred: "At this time of day the risks are less and it is also easier to take a safe path".
The intelligence had been working on it for at least 48 hours and in secret the leaders of the contingent planned the move. Once the safest destination has been chosen and the least risky route studied, the plan begins. «You don't go back to Italy, you just move to another safer area.
The military participating in the "NATO Mission Iraq" will therefore await developments in the crisis at a safe distance, also because from the hours following the blitz organized by the United States to kill General Qassem Soleimani all operational activities had been suspended.
Firm exercises, military closed in the base pending developments.
But why don't we withdraw the entire contingent from Iraq?
The answer was given by the general Pasquale Preziosa, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force until 2016, interviewed by Formiche.net. Heard on the phone yesterday said: "Pending developments, perhaps start thinking about a date for the gradual and planned withdrawal, for example by September 2020".
The interview of Formiche.net
General, on these columns, Vittorio Emanuele Parsi suggested withdrawing the contingent in Iraq because "it is useless to stay in the multilateral coalitions if it is only used for small talk and not for taking decisions together". Agree?
Yes. Italy needs a foreign policy with the objectives that a country sets itself. It does not seem to me that there is currently any strategic thinking about it. And when there is no clear answer as to why you are out of the area with military assets, then it is time to retrace your steps and develop a new strategy.
Yet, from many parts of the Italian political world, Europe is invited to play a greater role in avoiding the crisis between Iran and the United States. But what can the Old Continent do?
Europe must first of all develop, with the new Commission, a strategy to be relevant in the future. Currently the features of a new strategic EU policy are missing. Unfortunately, the times to define them are in no way compatible with the events that follow one another at a rapid pace and with a geopolitics in turmoil in many theaters.
Does the killing of General Soleimani accelerate this pace?
I would say yes. Soleimani was a beacon for Iranian defense policy. The raid aimed to clearly target the Tehran regime. Other important reactions have not yet been recorded. Among other things, the absence of declarations by Saudi Arabia means, in some ways, support for American action, interpreted by Riad as a signal of the strengthening of the relationship with Washington. On the other hand, Soleimani was believed by many to be the mind behind drone attack conducted some time ago in Saudi Arabia. His killing represents a clear signal of the intentions of American politics at this time, but not only with reference to Iran.
Explain us better.
Another recipient is the President of North Korea Kim Jong-un, author of declarations in recent days that are far from what Americans expected in terms of denuclearization. The Baghdad raid represents an indirect response to US intentions in all sectors. The message is clear: when negotiations fail, they can put in place different strategies capable of causing serious national losses for the opponent. This concept has been revealed several times by the United States, with the use of two atomic bombs on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, with the killing of Osama bin Laden (and his son), with the elimination of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and now with that of Soleimani. Among other things, a concept that allows Trump to launch towards the next elections in a position of strength.
And in the relationship with an increasingly assertive Turkey?
Turkey remains somewhat in the limbo of its ambitions. It will continue thanks to the American lack of interest in the area, provided that Washington's strategic interests, like Israel, are not touched, a hypothesis that does not seem on the horizon. Despite the frictions over the purchase of the Russian S-400 system, Turkey and the United States seem to have found a fairly peaceful drop point.
However, Ankara's action in Libya worries Europe.
Sure. Turkey will be the nerve center for 2020 of what can happen in Libya. The relief to Fayez al Serraj requires us Europeans to clarify what and who we are supporting, but above all the way in which to unravel a skein that now seems more complicated than what could have been foreseen with the French attack that destabilized the country without a plan adequate for future stability.
Do you think the European Union has the strength to say something, from Libya to Iran?
There are no glimmers of EU decisions. On the other hand, to make decisions you need intentions and words, but for words you need to have a mouth and teeth. I believe that Europe is lacking its teeth to be able to exercise a deterrence useful for affirming a shareable process, albeit not shared by all.
Are you saying that traditional European soft power is no longer enough for Europe in such a complex international context?
For a world in turmoil like the present one, the answer remains Machiavelli: money (therefore the economy) and sword (therefore strength) are needed. Without the combination of these two elements there is no statehood, sovereignty is not expressed and no policy is put in place. Precisely for this reason Europe must decide today and quickly what it wants to be in the future, whether to respect the all-embracing thought of the founding fathers, or not. In this sense, a European military pillar within NATO could certainly be good for Europe and the United States.
In what way?
Despite the epochal change in their strategy towards the Pacific, Americans need allies. The world runs, and the competition between the powers too. An example is the field of hypersonic missiles an article has been published on the subject in the New York Times) of which Italy was among the first to speak of it as a game changer of world balances. Russia and China already have this capability, at least according to their statements, and the United States is only recovering now. The terms of deterrence change and that is why we need a European pillar, so as to strengthen transatlantic relations in new balances that are not there. Without Europe, it will be difficult for the United States to rebuild a world order.
Does Italy have the strength to promote this European rethinking?
He has to find it. Our country has only one possibility to revive its economy and the possibility of having a foreign policy: to find the right place for it in the Euro-Atlantic context. Today we are almost absent, even if we remain in the G7 and boast one of the most advanced technological levels in the world.
What is missing?
A more solid internal framework is missing than that seen in recent years. Internal political weakness is reflected in the weakness of external action. Today we are unable to do foreign policy. We must start again by developing the economy and technological capabilities in a harmonious European framework, with the strength to promote a re-discussion of the common rules where they are not good for us.
Iraq does not want Italians to leave
«US troops out But Italian soldiers want them to stay"So the Shiite deputy Al Assadi then specified to the correspondent of the Corriere della Sera Lorenzo Cremonesi:"We value them, train our new goals We will focus on training tasks. Europeans will be able to work with us without needing to consult Washington".
Ahmad al-Assadi He is a deputy from the Baghdad parliament for the coalition of Al Fatah Shiite parties close to the militias linked to Tehran.
Now the decision is entirely political and above all strategic: what are the Italian interests in Iraq? Our interests are in Libya and yet we are in hiding together with the European Community.