After the killing of Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani, it's time for America to leave Iraq The United States may have been justified in killing Soleimani, but that doesn't mean it was wise for President Trump to do so.

Benjamin H. Friedman | Opinion contributor

Show Caption Hide Caption Are we really ready for a World War III? Fears are mounting around the world following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani - but is World War 3 about to happen?

The reckless decision to kill Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, along with several other Iraqi and Iranian officials, cannot be undone. But it can be an impetus for the belated exit of U.S. forces from Iraq, who may still avoid needless trouble.

Iraq’s parliament passed a resolution calling for the U.S. military forces (along with other foreign units) to be expelled. Washington should accept the invitation.

Even critics of killing Soleimani note he was a murderer, who had U.S. “blood on his hands.” While this is true, it’s largely beside the point. U.S. foreign policy does not exist to dispense global justice by punishing the wicked. It exists to serve U.S. security and prosperity, and protect our liberties here at home. Talk of justice distracts from consideration of consequences. Soleimani’s death is likely to lead to bad ones, possibly including broader war, especially if we insist on leaving relatively small numbers of forces nearby to absorb the trouble this week’s strike set off.

Soleimani was not a rogue outlaw, but a military official of a sovereign government we were not at war with, making his killing an assassination. His actions, however evil, served Iranian policy. Even Iranians with no love for his ilk now bridle with nationalist outrage. Iranians rally around the flag, too. Adding to the outrage will be Saturday’s news the U.S. strike was a long-planned punitive measure aimed at punishing Iran for actions taken by the Kataeb Hezbollah militias it supports in Iraq — and not a means to stop an imminent attack on U.S. forces as Trump administration officials claimed.

An Iran with nuclear weapons is a real, frightening possibility

Iran is unlikely to directly attack U.S. forces, given the consequences. But they are now substantially more likely to resume their nuclear weapons program. That is not only because of the political boost U.S. action has given to hardliners there, but also because of President Donald Trump’s bellicosity. Subjecting Iranians to taunts and threats to destroy their cultural heritage — with U.S. forces stationed around them in Iraq and Afghanistan — reminds them of their weakness and the deterrent value of nuclear weapons.

The more direct consequences are likely to take place in Iraq, where the Iran-linked Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) militias are likely to escalate their attacks on U.S. military forces and other personnel. That could spark a broader conflict with Iran, given the Trump administration’s belligerence.

U.S. forces should have left Iraq already. Once the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group's caliphate was defeated, the U.S. military mission in Iraq became murky. And as the Trump administration pulled out of Iran deal and ratcheted up economic pressure on Iran over the last several years, U.S. forces became a magnet for trouble, more bait for a disastrous war with Iran than a means to U.S. security.

The right decision: Donald Trump showed restraint, then resolve, in killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani

With the drone strike, which killed not only Soleimani but Mahdi al Muhandis, Deputy Commander of Iraq’s PMF and several of his colleagues, stationing U.S. forces in Iraq became even less tenable. The PMF forces are a collection of Shi’ite militias, officially but in fact loosely subordinated to the Iraqi government, that include as many as 500,000 fighters by some estimates. Many of those militiamen, who recently and quite brutally helped fight IS, as did Soleimani, are now likely to turn on the U.S. forces — especially if they are kept in Iraq in the face of Iraqi demands they go. Whatever their quality, the militias manpower makes them a formidable threat.

The people of Iraq don't and will not want us there

Popular anger against the United States in Iraq, not only from the drone strike, but the airstrikes days before, which Iraq’s government opposed — not to mention to the botched occupation and civil war it set off — is inescapable now. That makes it difficult for any Iraqi government to back the U.S. force presence or work energetically to suppress renewed Shi’ite resistance to U.S. forces.

Violence directed against U.S. forces in Iraq is not likely limited to there. Trump officials insist they will blame militias attacks on Iran, even when it’s not clear they are doing Tehran’s bidding. However unintentionally, they have created a circumstance where U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria face increased attacks, which might then draw them into war with Iran. That is the policy that has brought us to this precipice. No U.S. security goal justifies that risk.

This is personal: War with Iran is terrifying prospect for Americans with family in the Middle East, like me

The idea that U.S. forces have to remain in Iraq to defeat the remnant of IS ignores the evident will of Iraqis to do that themselves, the historical lesson that U.S. forces have helped spark rather than quell renewed insurgency, and the ability to return to strike IS in extremis. Continuing the mission would be a bad idea, even if didn’t risk a massive and utterly counterproductive war with Iran.

Rather than send more U.S. forces to the region where they will join in vulnerability with those already there, the United States should remove its forces from Iraq and begin exiting the broader region. As the events of the last two weeks underline, the smattering of U.S. forces in the region are not accomplishing anything useful, but are enough to pull the United States into another needless war.

Benjamin H. Friedman is Policy Director at Defense Priorities. Follow him on Twitter: @BH_Friedman