Decisions to withdraw U.S. forces from conflict zones often provoke significant political and media uproar, ranging from official celebrations of sovereignty and victory rhetoric to deep apprehensions regarding the security vacuum and the fate of allies. Between the American desire to end the “endless war” and pointing the compass toward major geopolitical priorities—such as great-power competition—fundamental questions emerge regarding the reality of these withdrawals: Are they a defeat and failure, or a strategic repositioning? Has Washington ever succeeded in achieving the ambitions of the peoples in whose countries it intervened, and what is the fate of the Kurds and Iraq today light of these transformations?
Timeline of U.S. Withdrawals: A Record of Disparities and Attrition
The U.S. military presence was not of a uniform pattern throughout history; rather, its circumstances, causes, and results varied across a broad historical sequence:
Cuba 1898 – 1902 and the Continuation of Guantanamo: U.S. forces entered Cuba following the Spanish-American War and administered the country militarily, then evacuated Cuban cities in 1902 and granted it nominal independence after imposing the constitutional “Platt Amendment,” while retaining the Guantanamo base. As the results oscillated between strategic dominance and political instability, it failed to fulfill its missions and partially withdrew.
The Philippines 1898 – 1946, then Base Closures in 1992: The presence began with direct occupation and colonization following the Spanish-American War to extend influence in Asia, later transforming into major military bases during the Cold War. It ended with a complete withdrawal and evacuation of the bases in 1992 as a result of growing nationalist sentiment and the Philippine Parliament’s refusal to renew treaties, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Nicaragua 1912 – 1933: An intervention and occupation lasting over two decades by the Marines to protect economic interests, ending with withdrawal in 1933 under the pressure of violent armed resistance and high costs coinciding with the “Great Depression,” where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Dominican Republic 1916 – 1924: A direct military occupation lasting 8 years to control financial affairs and debt, ending with withdrawal and hand-over of power to a local government under the pressure of popular and diplomatic rejection, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
World War II 1939 – 1945: Witnessed the largest historical military deployment to liberate Europe and Axis nations; Washington completely withdrew its combat forces from liberated countries after handing sovereignty over to stable national governments, while forces in Germany and Japan gradually transitioned via an organized, phased withdrawal into permanent strategic bases to maintain international security. As the major objectives were accomplished with distinction, it succeeded in performing its missions and successfully withdrew or repositioned.
Vietnam 1960s – 1973: Washington intervened to curb the spread of communism in Asia, ending in a forced withdrawal and the rapid collapse of Saigon in 1975 under the weight of popular pressure and tremendous losses, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Lebanon 1982 – 1984: U.S. peacekeeping forces entered to oversee the withdrawal of the PLO and the stability of Beirut, but withdrew rapidly in 1984 following resounding bombing attacks against its bases, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Panama 1989 – 1999: A military intervention to overthrow the Noriega regime and secure the canal, followed by an organized, scheduled withdrawal after fully handing over sovereignty pursuant to bilateral agreements. As the intervention achieved its accurately planned objective, it succeeded in performing its missions and withdrew.
Somalia 1992 – 1994: Began as purely humanitarian missions to protect relief aid, but turned into a security quagmire that ended in a swift and sudden withdrawal following the “Battle of Mogadishu” and the shock of human casualties, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995: A decisive intervention to end sectarian war, followed by a gradual and quiet transition from combat forces to a European peacekeeping mission and permanent institutional support that led to regional stability, where it succeeded in performing its missions and partially withdrew.
Afghanistan 2001 – 2021: A comprehensive invasion to eliminate Al-Qaeda and the Taliban movement in response to the September 11 attacks, ending in a abrupt withdrawal in the summer of 2021 accompanied by a dramatic collapse of the state and military institutions, where it failed to perform its missions and withdrew.
Iraq and Syria since 2003 and 2014: Multi-stage interventions to fight terrorism and achieve stability, still suffering from a crisis of fluctuating force levels, pressure from armed factions, and ongoing apprehensions of a security vacuum.
The Concept of Withdrawal in American Political Doctrine
Contrary to popular belief, an American “withdrawal” does not necessarily signify a strategic defeat. In the strategic literature of the Pentagon and Washington, a withdrawal is sometimes viewed as a tool for success and course correction when the economic and human costs of a specific military presence become exorbitant compared to the gains, or when larger global threats emerge that require redirecting priorities toward competition with major powers. Furthermore, American strategy sometimes relies on reducing direct presence and depending on strong local allies to protect shared interests while retaining diplomatic and intelligence influence. However, a withdrawal turns into a real disaster and a resounding failure if it is not built upon a firmly established institutional settlement, or if it leaves the state hostage to a security vacuum filled by armed factions and militias at the expense of state sovereignty and official institutions—just as we have witnessed in previous episodes and as is feared in the Iraqi scene today.
Has America Succeeded in Fulfilling the Ambitions of the Peoples in Whose Countries It Intervened?
From a purely strategic standpoint, the United States has never entered any country with the aim of achieving the ambitions of its people or fostering local welfare; rather, it has always intervened solely to advance American national interests—whether by protecting national security, securing energy sources, preventing geopolitical adversaries from expanding, or combating terrorism. Nevertheless, history reveals interesting intersections where Washington’s interests occasionally aligned with the aspirations of local populations, such as protecting the Kurds in Iraq through the imposition of the no-fly zone since 1991, or ending the bloody war in Bosnia, where the population found a temporary safety umbrella in U.S. coverage. However, this alignment consistently lacks permanence; as soon as the White House’s strategic need ends, American administrations abandon their local allies without hesitation, proving that relying perpetually on absolute external protection without building self-immunity and strong national institutions remains a gamble fraught with fatal risks.
What Comes After the Withdrawal in Iraq… and the Fate of the Kurds Under the Umbrella of History?
Shifting the focus to the current Iraqi scene, any prospective U.S. withdrawal or drawdown opens the door to grave, existential questions—particularly for the Kurdistan Region, which has historically been tied to U.S. security patronage since the 1990s. The “36th parallel” and the no-fly zone provided the safe haven upon which the region’s constitutional and entity experience was built, and this link continued through the military presence of the International Coalition after 2014. Today, with rising political and field pressures for the departure of U.S. forces and the postponed resolution of the armed factions issue, the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Ministry of Peshmerga harbor genuine anxiety over the absence of an adequate defense system and an integrated protection scheme in the face of factional threats and a potential vacuum. The lesson of history is clear: the Kurds in Iraq and the Iraqi state as a whole stand at a crucial crossroads. Unless managed through a comprehensive political settlement and a genuine restriction of weapons to the state and its constitutional institutions—including the Peshmerga forces as part of the country’s security apparatus—a U.S. withdrawal will not merely be a passing military event, but could plunge the entire region into a new vortex of vacuums and harsh existential tests.
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version… Read the Arabic version:Click here
