The glory of the U.S. military in the Middle East seems to be fading, and in both Syria and Iraq, the U.S. military is attacked almost every three or five times. Now that there is news that US troops may withdraw from Iraq and Syria, is the "Kabul moment" about to be staged again? 
The Global Times reported that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq sent a letter to Iraq**, indicating that the U.S. side intends to start negotiations related to the "withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq". Compared with the previous withdrawal condition that "Iraq must first disband the Iranian-backed Shiite militias", the US side now seems to have softened its tone, which is a very obvious shift. Obviously, in the face of endless raids and harassments, the suffering US military can no longer bear it, and this situation also exists in Syria. According to sources, about 900 U.S. troops may also be evacuated from Syria. This series of actions has attracted attention from all sides, including within the United States, who fear that it will be misinterpreted as a red flag that the United States is withdrawing from the Middle East. In fact, as early as before and after the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States' Middle East policy had already fluctuated. While emphasizing that it will not leave the Middle East, it has also shown an attitude of reducing military forces. The United States seems to have viewed the Middle East as a strategic burden, consuming too many resources and affecting its focus on other regions, such as Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. 
While a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East is unlikely in theory, the situation in Iraq and Syria has put the U.S. military in a dilemma. The frequent attacks of Shiite militias have turned the US military into potential "hostages", and the presence of US troops in these areas is more symbolic. Relative to the acquisition of material resources, the significance of garrisoning troops is to demonstrate the influence of the United States and to intervene in local politics from within. But these bridgeheads are increasingly losing their meaning, and in the event of a major event, not only will the U.S. strategy be damaged, but the associated political impact may also be directly fed back to domestic votes, which may be an important reason for the White House to push for the withdrawal. Although the attack strategy of the Shiite militia did not cause large-scale ** to the US military, the entry of Iran made the US military have to be more cautious. If the Revolutionary Guards join forces with Shiite militias and tribal forces to target U.S. military bases, the psychological pressure on the U.S. military could return to the level of the Vietnam War. 
The withdrawal of the US military will inevitably affect the confidence of its allies in the US capability. Washington's situation is complicated, because the US military hegemony is already a leaky ship, and no matter how it is remedied, it seems impossible to avoid the ultimate sinking fate. In fact, the withdrawal of US troops is not only an adjustment of the strategy of this matter, but also a response to the current international situation. To some extent, this may be a strategy of self-protection by the US military, or it may be a reluctant acceptance of the new reality in the Middle East.