Blair to Draw Down British Troops
Tony Blair is taking 1600 troops out of Basra in the next few months and will aim to be down to only 3,000 or so (from 7,100 now) by the end of the year. Denmark is also going home.
This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Dhi Qar province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.
Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/21/2007 12:35:00 PM
Click to join Infoco
15 Comments:
But Dick Cheney said this is evidence that everything's just super-duper in Iraq over there, ya know?
What gives?
Certainly the Vice President wouldn't stand there and just lie through his teeth, would he? Oh dear.
Or is this really the beginning of the end?
The British like the Americans are just bystanders in Iraq.
Tony Blair :
****************
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/PrimeMinisterAnnouncesUkForceReductionInIraq.htm
U.K. Ministry of Defence
Prime Minister announces UK Force reduction in Iraq
21 Feb 07
In a statement to the House of Commons today, Wednesday 21 February 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a reduction in the number of UK Forces in Iraq from 7,100 to approximately 5,500. This is a reduction of nearly 1,600 UK troops.
We are able to announce this reduction in Force levels because of the growing capacity of the Iraqi security forces...
...This announcement reflects the progress that has been made in the south towards complete Iraqi self-reliance, and also the challenges that remain...
...Since the outset our plan, agreed by Iraq and the United Nations, has been to build up Iraqi capability in order to let them take control of their own destiny. As they would step up, we would, increasingly, step back...
******************
George Aiken :
******************
THE NEW YORK TIMES published Thursday, October 20, 1966; Page 1
Aiken Suggests U.S. Say It Has Won War
By RICHARD EDER Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19--Senator George D. Aiken made a "far-fetched proposal" today for achieving peace in Vietnam: that the United States declare that it has won the war...
..."It may be a far-fetched proposal," said the 74-year-old Republican, who is a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "but nothing else has worked."...
...Senator Aiken said he was aware that his proposal, made in a speech to the Senate, might strike some as a bit of political drollery. It is intended with all seriousness, he said -- though with only faint hopes that it would work -- as a suggestion for freeing the Administration of one of the considerations that keep it on its present course: the concern that unilateral de-escalation would impair its military credibility...
...The Senator said his proposal was not designed to solve the political problem of Vietnam, but simply to eliminate the issue of the credibility of United States military power -- or more loosely, the question of "face".
***************
Tony Blair is following Senator Aiken's advice on saving "face".
What was it they said in Monty Python's Holy Grail?
"Run away, run away"
Too late Tony, you already ruined your legacy and reputation.
I read somewhere that if war breaks out between Iran and the United States, Basra would be one of the main provinces in which a subsequent Shiite uprising or Iranian counterattacks would pose major threats. Is this true, and if so could that be a motivation behind the pullout?
Is it possible that the Brits are also leaving because they know something the American public doesn't about Basra?
Announcing the "redeployment" now is about the worst blow to the Bush administration as it can be as far as timing goes. Could all this be a scramble to shore up what defenses they have left before something even worse happens?
Blair's already on his way out, so there's not a critical reason to announce this right now. It's within the realm of possibility that this announcement is simply cover for the Brits pulling back to Basra because they know things are about to get much much worse in the province.
You're almost certainly right about the Brits being routed in Basra. But I think we have to also consider that he's being given time to batten down the hatches in Basra for a very distinct reason: the countdown to attacking Iran is on.
Leaving before the shooting starts
The relative quiet in the Shia south of Iraq looks like it will soon be coming to an end. If the surge is used, as appears to be the administration's intent, as the means to get Iranian-backed militias killing US troops, so that our side can escalate eventually up to bombing Iran, then the fighting will have to be spread to the south. Surging into Baghdad won't, by itself, get the job of escalation done, because Sadr forces predominate there, and Sadr is no client of Iran. While the administration may not be planning to have our troops attack SCIRI and Dawa strongholds in the south at the outset, they perhaps feel that the assault on Sadr City will be so bloody, so Fallujah-like, that these more Iran-friendly organizations will be compelled to attack US supply lines from Kuwait in solidarity with their brethren in Baghdad. That will be the administration's excuse to widen the war into the south.
If this is what the administration is planning, the fewer Brits in the south the better. The administration doesn't want the Brits to be able to keep a lid on Shia groups in the south when the massacre of Shia starts in Baghdad, so the fewer British troops on hand the better from their point of view. And the Brits, of course, don't particularly want to have their troops on hand to be caught up in this bloody travesty.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BasraIraqiArmyDivisionTransfersToIraqiCommand.htm
The Iraqi Ground Force Command (IGFC) has assumed control of the 10th Iraqi Army Division (IAD), which is now fully operational.
The Brits are drawing down because the 10th IAD can handle the bottom four provinces without their help.
Not only does the 10th IAD now control the bottom four provinces, but they are also contributing battalions and a lot of cadre for Baghdad.
Most informed observers back in 2005 or 2006, would have been very surprised if there wasn't a major drawdown of Multinational troops in the bottom four provinces in 2007. The 10th IAD was widely expected to be able to take over the far South in 2007.
Its possible that some observers back in 2005 or 2006 might have predicted that the Brits could relocate some troops from the South to Baghdad or Al Anbar; but I doubt many would have been surprised by the announcement that they are reducing their presence in the South.
The four primary Basrah militias would get mauled if they messed with the 10th IAD (certainly literally, but probably politically as well). The 10th IAD has won every substantial engagement with them hands down. Thats why they avoid taking them on frontally.
The main problem in Basra is not militia, sectarian or political violence . . . its corruption, organized crime and the stealing of Iraq's energy wealth. The three are closely linked. The solution to this is mostly political and up to Basra residents and Iraqis. More British troops are of limited use in solving this problem.
Blair dared to say :
Since the outset our plan, agreed by Iraq and the United Nations, has been to build up Iraqi capability in order to let them take control of their own destiny. As they would step up, we would, increasingly, step back...
Blattant lie, the invasion of Iraq was never authorized by the UN. It was a breach of all international laws based on a made up excuse which proved to be lie also. UK has signed the convention for the ICC and he ought to be brought to trial, like the dishonnest man he is.
That a US rep could get inebriated by dreams of empire if not excusable is understandable. But I never understood what pushed a leader of the labour to march with Bush in this clear breach of the national sovereignity of Iraq.
He deserve to end in shame and in jail for his deeds. I hope that the Western judicial authorities will make their job and that the EU citizen will come down in the streets if they don't. It's just a question of applying the law, not more. Do you think Blair is less guilty than Miserovic, Mladiczc, Karadizc and co ? You are just wrong, all deserve a fair trial but all should be held responsible of their deeds.
The Guardian reports that the British Army commanders wanted a bigger, faster, pullout.
If there will be no "coalition" forces left in Basra in a couple of years, are the contracts (Production Sharing Agreements) giving US/British oil corporations exclusive rights to exploration and production of Iraqi oil (and 70% of the value of that oil) worth the paper they are written on?
What's astonishing (even to a cynical old lefty like me)) is how much play the administration's spin -- i.e. the Brits are leaving because they've accomplished their mission -- is getting in the corporate media today. Most of the coverage seems primarily obsessed with how Blair's announcement will play in the U.S. political debate. I've yet to see anyone other than Juan Cole actually refer back to the facts on the ground: the British bugout in Maysan last August, the evacuation of the Basra Palace, the rampant militia fighting.
It's as if spin, and the daily PR battle in Washington, is the only "reality" the journalistic elites are willing to acknowledge. Iraq itself has become a sideshow -- or a fantasy world where any given argument may or may not be true, depending on which side is shouting its message points the loudest.
The irony is that the media environment is infinitely more saturated than it was during Vietnam, and yet the quality of the public discussion is infinitely worse. That's how empires eventually die, I suppose -- suffocated in a toxic fog of their own ignorance.
My guess is that Blair is pulling the British Army out of Basra, which is only fifteen miles from the Iranian border, because the Bush administration has let him in on the date they plan to launch their war against Iran. Blair doesn't want the British garrison there to get caught in the middle of that new war, so he's withdrawing his troops as rapidly as he can without giving the impression of a panicked retreat.
That's just a guess, or what you might call an "uninformed comment." Since you know a hundred times more about the area than I do, does that guess seem plausible to you?
What's the big deal about the Brits drawing down in Basra? There's no insurgency in those provinces. No AlQ. The only disputes are intra-Shiite and local thuggery. The Brit drawn down was flagged months ago and probably would have happened much earlier if not for the situation in Baghdad. Dr Cole is (uncharacteristically) indulging himself in a beat up.The Shiites should be jolly grateful to the Brits and hand them roses as they go.
The big thing being missed is the intention to increase the number of British troops in Afghanistan. Despite the rocket attacks on the main British base near Basra, Afghanistan is where the fighting is.
Blair's personal reputation has already collapsed, there are signs he isn't in control of the British Cabinet, and he's failed to finish just about every political job he's started. The phrase "home by Christmas" was even heard at one point.
And the British media are reving older suspicions, such as the Kelly Affair, as well as getting into the habit of masking "drama documentaries" about the sexual misbehaviour of Labour politicians.
Post a Comment
<< Home