The final nature of future Western military presence in the Arab region remains unclear at the current stage.  There are different Western assessments regarding the nature of US military presence in the Arab region following its withdrawal from Afghanistan. One view is that this is a redeployment rather than a complete American withdrawal from the region, another argues it is part of a process of repositioning and engagement in the region to achieve specific goals, including fighting terrorism, within the framework of military cooperation with allied regional powers. There is also a third perspective which views this as a transitional period that will last several years, which will possibly be followed by a gradual withdrawal that will bring to an end the traditional form of Western military presence in the region, in light of the shift of American interests in particular and Western interests in general, to other regions.

However, it must be pointed out that these changes with respect to Western military presence are not unprecedented. The United States ended its military presence in Libya following the terrorist attack on its embassy in Benghazi in 2012, and thereafter limited its role to fighting Al-Qaeda in Libya through the use of drones. In Syria, despite the announcement by President Donald Trump’s administration of a military withdrawal, the US redeployed forces to support the Kurds as allies in the fight against ISIS, which necessitated strengthening American bases in northern Syria. In Yemen, the US carried out strikes against Al-Qaeda, targeting many of its leaders, without establishing a military presence on the ground.

France has also recently begun withdrawing from the Sahel region in Africa, particularly from Mali. This was prompted by the various attacks on its forces there, in addition to the fluidity of the political scene, and the occurrence of several coups. France is currently supporting military operations against rebel forces opposing the Transitional Council in Chad, despite having reduced its military forces and declaring the end of Operation Barkhan. In June, France was forced to resume its military operations in this region to avoid the chaos that could ensue from a complete military withdrawal. Some interpreted as a lack of clarity in French policy, while others thought that France was only threatening to withdraw its forces, in response to various developments in the region. France was among the first countries to announce their withdrawal from Afghanistan, when the US announced, years ago, its own phased withdrawal from that country.

It can be argued, however, that there are several factors that may be pushing western countries to decrease their military engagement in the Arab region and the Middle East as a whole, these include:

1. The financial burden of military engagement: The cost of a sustained military presence in conflict areas in the Middle East has become a burden on the defense budgets of Western countries in general. While European Union and NATO countries bore a lesser burden of total military financing than the United States, which does not compare to the sum of US military spending. The human cost has also been significant. This also applies to the reasons leading to the French military withdrawal from Africa, as its forces sustained many attacks, notably one in early 2021, killing of 50 soldiers from the Barkhan force.
   
2. The declining impact of fixed military bases: One of the lessons Western countries have learned, especially from the experience in Iraq, is that fixed military bases no longer achieve the desired goals, but have become a military burden, requiring constant reinforcements and funding, simply to maintain their existence. Military bases have also become targets for the Iran-backed militias that oppose Western presence in Iraq.
   
3. The changing nature of armaments: The conflicts in the region have become unconventional in nature, and therefore, conventional military forces are no longer effective in this type of warfare, and multiple military bases are not necessary.
   
4. The limited goals of current military operations: As previously mentioned, there is a tendency for Western powers to define clear and limited goals for their military engagements, and these define the size and configuration of forces on the ground. For example, the US says one of the main objectives of its military presence in Syria is to prevent ISIS from accessing oil resources in Syria, which would provide ISIS a significant economic resource. The US deployment on the ground is therefore shaped to achieve this objective.
   

Issues that will shape Western military presence

Defining the scope of Western military engagement in the region confronts two major dilemmas. The first dilemma is that of the void that will be created by Western military withdrawal. Recent US intelligence analysis, reviewed at the annual National Intelligence and Security gathering, points out that it is the role of the military presence, not the form it takes, which reveals the importance of continued military engagement within the framework of counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and other places in Africa. Western assessments point to the likelihood that other powers will seek to fill the void left in these areas by Western military withdrawal. These powers include Russia and China in Afghanistan, and Russia, Iran, and Turkey in Syria. Moreover, such a withdrawal would strengthen Iran’s influence in Iraq, and Russia’s influence through the Wagner Group in Africa.

The second dilemma is articulating a vision of this future military presence. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron indicated in his speech announcing the reduction of the military presence in Africa that “The situation will change,” without clarifying what this would mean. At the same time, there is a general lack of consensus among Western governments on a strategic vision for the future. French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly’s statements indicate that, despite what happened during Operation Barkhan and the criticism leveled at it, the situation is better with it than without it. In Iraq, American field commanders, especially General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of the US Central Command, also indicated that there is still a need to maintain US forces and bases in Iraq. 

Later developments complicated the situation, with what some view as a desire to revenge the targeting of American bases, and an unwillingness to withdraw in defeat. Moreover, the forces opposed to Western military presence in the region view the change in the form of western military presence as merely a tactic to avoid withdrawal, and therefore are likely to continue their offensive operations, as indicated by the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq militia in Iraq.

It can be argued that there is great opacity surrounding the future of Western military presence and its role in the region. The goals of such a presence remain unclear, is the focus on combating terrorism, supporting allied regimes, the protection of Western interests, or all of the above. Priorities may also change with new developments. For example, a recent US military statement indicated a focus on the security of shipping lanes. In view of recent maritime skirmishes lately between Iran and Israel, this has become a priority. There is therefore a tactical aspect to defining the priorities and shape of Western military presence in the region, and these are likely to change in the context of a turbulent and tense regional scene.