Why are American troops still fighting ISIS in Iraq?

Iraqi and US forces conducted a major multi-day raid against ISIS in Iraq’s western Anbar province on August 29 – the largest joint operation in recent years. While such efforts were common earlier during the anti-ISIS mission known as Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the most recent operation comes as the group is largely defeated and unable to conduct major attacks, let alone international ones. Indeed, the heavy involvement of US troops in anti-ISIS missions is a thing of the past – highlighting the long-running need to end the current US military operation in Iraq.

Roughly 2,500 US troops support OIR in Iraq, alongside the Iraqi military. This deployment began in 2014 as ISIS conquered substantial territory in Iraq and Syria, threatening Baghdad. Former President Barack Obama ordered the deployment after rightly withdrawing US forces in 2011 due to domestic pressure against the Iraq war and occupation.

Today’s Iraq is not that of 2014. The Islamic State is largely defeated, does not hold territory, and no more than 2,500 ISIS fighters roam free between Iraq and Syria. Consecutive US military reports highlight the group’s relative inability to conduct serious global operations, let alone major attacks in the Middle East. While there are still ISIS attacks in Iraq and Syria, they are tiny in scale – reflecting the group’s relative weakness today.

US forces continue to conduct anti-ISIS operations in Iraq under this context, including the early September operation that killed approximately 14 ISIS fighters across four locations in western Iraq’s vast desert. Iraqi and US officials released statements following the raid, stating the operation killed major ISIS leaders and collected intelligence. The operation reportedly involved hundreds of US and Iraqi forces, suggesting the raid involved a high-value target.

At the same time, seven US service members were injured in the operation. Two were flown to a military hospital in Germany for additional treatment. While none of the wounded soldiers sustained life-threatening injuries, the details of the raid remain murky – including the number of US personnel involved and who or what they were targeting.

This lack of clarity is concerning given the operation’s scale, ISIS’s relative weakness, and recent Iraqi demands for US troops to leave. Indeed, Baghdad wishes to end the US mission as it believes it can handle ISIS – something officials in Washington have openly disdained over the last year since receiving the request.

To be sure, Iran-backed militias and their political parties are heaping heavy pressure on the Iraqi government to remove US troops. These groups prop up Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani’s government. One of Iran’s primary foreign policy objectives is to remove US military deployments from the region, starting in Iraq and Syria, to expand its influence and security vis-a-vis its neighbors.

Washington and Baghdad continue to discuss the nature of their military relationship via the recently established Higher Military Commission. Sudani is in a difficult position – he reportedly prefers to keep a US presence but will not survive politically by doing so. According to one report, the talks produced a rough draft for a US withdrawal over the next two years – with most troops leaving next year. Unsurprisingly, US officials remain unhappy with the plan, reportedly pressing for a third withdrawal year.

These security and political dynamics paint a difficult picture for US forces in Iraq. From a security standpoint, ISIS is diminished, with attacks down 55 percent year on year despite CENTCOM continuously stressing that attacks are increasing. According to OIR inspector general reports, attacks are up 12 percent in Syria and down 25 percent overall – challenging such messaging.

Couple that with the ongoing threat Iran-backed militias pose. These groups have attacked US positions over 170 times since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel –  responding to US backing for Israel’s subsequent Gaza operation in its eleventh month. The US has responded with airstrikes on these militias – angering the Iraqi public and officials, who claim it is a sovereignty violation. These militia attacks have killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more. US servicemembers in the region often reside in exposed bases that are less secure than major regional hubs in Bahrain and Qatar.

Politically, the US presence places a relatively friendly prime minister in a difficult position amidst a population that understandably carries misgivings about any US presence following the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation that destroyed the country. Israel’s war against Hamas has only worsened this US image.

Ultimately, keeping US troops in harm’s way to fight a completed mission is a fool’s errand, especially when much of OIR is achievable via over-the-horizon efforts, like in Afghanistan. Intelligence sharing and ongoing military advisory efforts that utilize local actors substitute OIR at a fraction of the fiscal and political price while keeping US citizens safe, at home and abroad.

One would think that OIR reports highlighting the importance of addressing the root causes of the ongoing ISIS threat – something it repeatedly admits it cannot resolve – would lead US officials to shift course. As the past indicates, the US military does not have a role to play in Iraqi state building. Ultimately, American leaders should reject any form of mission creep in the Middle East – including state building and countering Iranian influence in Iraq – especially as ISIS attacks and threats continue to decrease.

Alexander Langlois is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities.