The U.S. Military Exits Iraq, Leaving Behind a Nation in Peril

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Sept. 29, 2026 9:00 pm ET | Jared Malsin and Sangar Khaleel

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An Iraqi demand that tens of thousands of militants turn in their weapons falls short in a conflict fed by America’s war with Iran

BAGHDAD—After spending more than 23 years and $1.7 trillion, America is winding down what critics have called its forever war in Iraq, closing the last major U.S. military base on Wednesday.

“We don’t think we need the military there anymore,” President Trump said during a White House visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi in July. “We have a fantastic champion, a new champion,” the president said. “He’s young, and he’s handsome.”

Zaidi, a 41-year-old businessman, sat beside Trump during the visit and announced a deadline, also set for Wednesday, for Iranian-backed militias to hand over their weapons. “There is no justification for their existence after the 30th of September,” he said.

Instead, America’s open-ended war with Iran is pushing Iraq deeper into conflict, with the U.S. exit leaving behind a country where well-armed militias are only tightening their grip. Militants and Iranian forces launched more than 600 attacks on U.S. diplomatic and military facilities in Iraq in the first two months of the war, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In a sign of Iraq’s instability, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad now sends frequent security warnings to individual Americans and others. About two a week regard kidnapping by militants. A team from the Journal abruptly left Baghdad this month after Iraqi, U.S. and European officials warned of a security threat that American officials later said was a kidnapping risk by a Shiite militia.

Iran-backed militias have long exercised influence in Iraq. But...

---

TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS:

[JZelle]

Thanks W

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks W

WMDs, don'tcha know? 🤡

[hinckley buzzard]

Despite the interference from Iran, Iraq has been rather quiet the last few years. If the goal was to enable a relatively stable not too hostile government, it may well be time to leave them to their own governance.

[MinorityRepublican]

Despite the interference from Iran, Iraq has been rather quiet the last few years. If the goal was to enable a relatively stable not too hostile government, it may well be time to leave them to their own governance.

There are three countries in Iraq. Eventually Iraq may split up. But for now the status quo is working with the Iranians running the show behind the scene.

[Paal Gulli]

Saddam did have WMDs. And the US found them. Bush lied, not about Saddam having WMDs but about not having found them.

The NY Slimes ran with the story in 2014 detailing the injuries to US servicemen who chanced across the caches of mustard agent and sarin. The Slimes later published the US intelligence report on the events, released under FOIA. It's even been noted on Wikipedia that "the total number of munitions discovered since 2003 had climbed to 4,990...."

The Daily Beast later reported that Bush administration insiders claimed that it was Carl Rove's idea to cover up having found the weapons for fear it would spark an Muhammadan terrorist scavenger hunt to find others the US might have overlooked.

If you want to argue that "4,990" isn't adequate to be real WMDs, now you're argument falls apart as just splitting hairs.

[Leaning Right]

> Thanks W <

I’m sure others will differ. But I rank George W. Bush as one of our three worst presidents. He botched our response to 9/11. “Islam is peace.” Then he went on this weird nation-building exercise in Afghanistan.

And then W topped it off by invading Iraq, a country that was a counterbalance to Iran.

Oh, how I despise that guy.

[Gunslingr3]

I think his daddy did us worse by getting us heavily, military committed to the region 35 years ago.

We’ve reaped nothing by debt, death, and a steady erosion of our rights since.

[TigersEye]

Now the lefties are against getting out of Iraq?

Who could have possibly predicted they would do that? LOL

[TigersEye]

Thank you for posting that. It has always amazed me how easily everyone accepted the “no WMDs” propaganda without questioning it at all.

[Thud]

The Russians moved most of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons to Syria just before Desert Storm started, per a well known pre-arranged plan. The movements were observed by US aerial recon and the media reported on those without stating what the trucks contained. I and many others commented on that, mostly to the effect of “There go Iraq’s WMD”.

[Stingray51]

I have a bit of a different take. The chemical weapons you are referring to did exist and US soldiers encountered them. They were mainly leftover artillery shells from the 1980s, many of which were rusted and leaking and could not be fired. They were not an active, usable inventory of chemical weapons; there was no ongoing production of them or other WMD; and there was no WMD ready for use. This was addressed in the Robb-Silberman’s 2005 report, long before the Slimes’ 2014 report. Botton line is that there were 1980s leftovers all over the place but these were not the WMDs that the war was sold to the American public on the basis of. I do agree that Rove is terrible. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot of him around the mid-terms. He’s probably doubling up on calories to carry him through spreading his RINO garbage.

[unclebankster]

Thank you for posting that. It has always amazed me how easily everyone accepted the “no WMDs” propaganda without questioning it at all.

*********************

The reason it was dismissed, is because the Bush administration was selling mushroom clouds and nukes, when the government of Iraq had biological & chemical weapons that are WW1 technologies.

If that’s your case for going to war with a country, you’ll have your country in a permanent war with many nations around the globe.

[Allegra]

Saddam did have WMDs. And the US found them. Bush lied, not about Saddam having WMDs but about not having found them.

😏

[Leaning Right]

> there was no WMD ready for use <

One school of thought is Saddam still had WMDs. He kept them to intimidate his sworn enemy, Iran. But those weapons were old and unreliable, as you noted.

What about any more modern WMDs? The ones that were moved to Syria, etc.? They fall into the “some guy told some other guy” category. I don’t find that convincing at all.

[Miami Rebel]

That’ll NEVER happen again.

[TigersEye]

These links may be broken now since they were collected over 20 years ago but a search on the titles would probably find most of them.

• Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
• Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
• WMDs Found in Iraq Human Events
• Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.
• Saddam's WMD have been found
• Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
• Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
• Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river
• Evidence of WMDs in Iraq - Annonymous Freeper in Iraq
• Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq
• MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River
• EUPHRATES 'POISONED'
• Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq's biological weapons program.
• Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons NYTs October 14, 2014
• C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons NYTs February 15, 2015

[DIRTYSECRET]

Remember Muqtada al-Sadr? He was the young, fat-boy cleric/militia leader. Hated us as much as he hated Saddam. He’s 52 now and what’s surprising is he’s still alive. Bush shouda’ taken him out. It Iraq rekindles it’s war with Iran let’s hope someone does it.

[TigersEye]

As for the reasons to go to war against Iraq/Saddam, I think there were a few more than you suggest.

Reasons we might have gone to war with Iraq.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (again, that should count as 17 reasons.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

This probably doesn't count but... the 250,000 to 290,000 people Saddam had killed

[Paal Gulli]

In the end the War in Iraq was NEVER about the belief that Saddam was working on nukes or additional biological or chemical weapons, it was about his defiance of the will of the international community to inspect and confirm for themselves that Saddam had no such programs.

That was a stalemate that could only ever have had one of three outcomes:

#1. Saddam admits IAEA inspectors and gives them free and unfettered access.

#2. America and her allies blink.

#3. America and her allies invade Iraq so they can see for themselvces once and for all what Saddam was willing to take such a disproportionate risk to keep hidden.

It was the same game of brinkmanship he had played against his neighbors for decades. Only this time, Dubya called Saddam’s bluff and it cost him his kingdom and his life.

And good riddance to bad rubbish.