After the bases are handed over, sovereignty still faces a security test

After the bases are handed over, sovereignty still faces a security test

On September 30, the U.S. military said it had completed the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq, ending a 12-year mission against the Islamic State group. Baghdad framed the milestone as a new phase for sovereignty and Iraqi security forces; concerns about air defense and protection in the Kurdish region remained.

This is not simply a choice between leaving and staying. The mission framework has changed, and the harder questions concern how security responsibilities are transferred and how bilateral cooperation continues.

The coalition mission ended, but security cooperation did not

Reports said the last U.S. troops left a base in northern Iraq as the coalition mission against the Islamic State group expired. The withdrawal followed an arrangement announced two years earlier, and Baghdad and Washington described a shift from a coalition mission toward Iraqi-led security arrangements.

U.S. officials also said targeted training and intelligence support would continue through bilateral ties. The departure of troops and bases therefore does not mean security cooperation vanished on the same day; its framework and on-the-ground footprint have changed.

The difficult part is capability, not ceremony

Iraqi officials said many security duties had already been transferred to national forces, including reconnaissance and routine aerial patrols. Kurdish regional leaders, meanwhile, voiced concern about the departure of air-defense systems. Those statements need not contradict each other: one describes capabilities taken over, the other points to areas still viewed as vulnerable.

Air defense and intelligence links still need testing

The ability to detect and respond to drones, missiles and cross-border threats depends not only on equipment, but also on intelligence links, maintenance, decision speed and coordination among command systems. Public reports convey officials’ assessments, but do not yet show whether these capabilities will work reliably under pressure.

Managing armed groups did not end with the withdrawal

The Iraqi government pushed the deadline for non-state groups to disarm to June 2027, while some influential groups still reject an immediate handover of weapons. This issue is connected to the foreign troop departure, but it will not resolve itself when bases change hands.

Sovereignty has to be carried by institutions that can act

My reading is that withdrawal can symbolize sovereignty, but cannot by itself prove that security is settled. The real test is whether the state can protect its airspace, bring armed force under common rules and keep pressure on remaining Islamic State networks as outside support changes.

The reporting does not prove that withdrawal will create a security vacuum, nor that the risks have been eliminated. It is more honest to keep both possibilities in view than to turn one milestone into a settled story of either victory or disaster.

Sources for this reading

Associated Press, “Trump hails the US military’s exit from Iraq after 12-year mission against Islamic State”; page published September 30, 2026 at 05:02 UTC (13:02 Beijing time). https://apnews.com/article/iraq-us-withdrawal-militias-disarmament-kurds-a097a39f3d1a3515adc2ba3298a6816f

Reuters, “US forces exit Iraq, emboldening Iran’s proxies and Islamic State”; page time displayed by The Times of Israel: September 30, 2026 at 7:43 a.m. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-forces-exit-iraq-emboldening-irans-proxies-and-islamic-state/

Al Jazeera, “How does Iraq’s security change after US forces withdraw?”; page dated September 30, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/30/how-does-iraqs-security-change-after-us-forces-withdraw