Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • Israel-Iran
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Iraq / Afghanistan and Iraq drawdowns are overdue but insufficient
Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East

November 16, 2020

Afghanistan and Iraq drawdowns are overdue but insufficient

By Benjamin Friedman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 16, 2020
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, CNN reported President Trump will announce a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing our presence to 2,500 by January 15, 2021. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 2,500 would be progress, but the drawdown should continue to zero. Full withdrawal should be as orderly and deliberate as possible—but not to the point of needless delay.

“Leaving permanent U.S. forces behind in Afghanistan or Iraq would be a mistake. Small numbers of forces, whether labeled as counterterrorism or not, are no magic bullet. They would likely continue the wars’ failure on a smaller scale, preserve their risk, and cause observers to confuse local threats with international terrorism.

“Intelligence gathering with local help, and targeted raids, if necessary, are more effective and can be done from afar with the U.S. military’s ISR-Strike capabilities.”

Author

Photo of Benjamin Friedman

Benjamin
Friedman

Policy Director

Defense Priorities

More on Iraq

In the mediaIraq, Basing and force posture, Global posture, Middle East

Bring our troops home: A case for full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq

Featuring William Walldorf

March 6, 2025

op-edSyria, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East

If Trump wants to win in the Middle East, he must focus on security, not grand visions

By William Walldorf

February 20, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Hamas, Iraq, Israel, Middle East

Trump’s Middle East plan would commit U.S. to Iraq War 2.0

By Rosemary Kelanic

February 12, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Iraq, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East, Syria

Trump foreign policy 2.0: Unpredictable president confronts unstable world

By Daniel DePetris

January 31, 2025

In the mediaIraq, Middle East

What will actually happen to the American forces in Iraq?

Featuring Dan Caldwell and Michael DiMino

October 6, 2024

In the mediaGrand strategy, Iraq, Middle East

Who Won the VP Debate, Vance or Walz?

Featuring Daniel DePetris

October 1, 2024

Events on Iraq

See All Events
virtualMiddle East, Basing and force posture, Diplomacy, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Military analysis, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Trump in the Middle East: Impacts, implications, and alternatives

May 16, 2025
in-personCounterterrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, Syria

Past In-Person Event: Ground truth about ground wars

November 5, 2019

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved