The prevailing media tendency to draw parallels between the exit of U.S. forces from Iraq and the humiliating, chaotic collapse in Afghanistan reveals a profound analytical naivete—one that is perhaps intentionally cultivated. Such comparisons overlook a crucial structural distinction: the difference between a shattered military campaign and the institutionalization of indirect hegemony.

Years ago, Paul Bremer, the former U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, offered an almost grotesque counterpoint to the Afghan tragedy when he flatly rejected any comparison between the two conflicts, insisting that Iraq was making “steady political progress.” Yet the harsh reality remains as the British analyst Matthew Parris once framed it: Washington’s strategy in Afghanistan failed catastrophically, wasting countless American and allied lives in a war that culminated in a panicked exit.

In Iraq, however, the situation is anything but a final departure. What we are witnessing is not a withdrawal, but a strategic re-engineering of control—replacing overt military presence with mechanisms of financial and political leverage.

In Iraq, however, the situation is anything but a final departure. What we are witnessing is not a withdrawal, but a strategic re-engineering of control—replacing overt military presence with mechanisms of financial and political leverage.

Washington did not truly abandon Iraq; it merely staged a theatrical exit. Political elites in Baghdad gathered to listen to an American general offer patronizing advice in Arabic, warning Iraqis to “prepare for the attacks of jackals as they would for lions.” Yet on the ground, Washington remains deeply entrenched. It no longer needs thousands of boots on the ground when it holds the master key to Iraq’s economic lifeline and financial decision-making.

READ: Al‑Zaidi and the age of the unqualified........

© Middle East Monitor