Win/Win or Brown’s ‘Betrayal of Basra’?
- Home
- Opinion Poll Watch Updated - Brown’s nadir?
- Tony Blair Contact Information
- All Site Contents
Comment at end
17th December, 2007
BASRA HANDED OVER TO IRAQIS
I can only point you to several different strands of thought on this. I reserve judgement for the time being. Thankfully, I do not need to take this decision. For that we have to thank, or blame our politicians and military leaders. I’ve noticed they always get the latter, seldom the former.
BBC report - “Far from ideal” says Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth.
Mr Ainsworth denied UK forces had been forced to retreat because they “realised the Iraqi army was riddled by militia”.
“We have not been forced to retreat,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
But of course the Al Qaeda deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued a statement on the internet, in which he said the UK had “fled” Basra. He insists that Britain has been defeated. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?
There is also an August 2007 video at YouTube, an OKTCS news broadcast, part of which gives a similar message, from ‘an unnamed US Intelligence source’:
11th December, 2007“ALL OUT”, WHISPERS BROWN
As our present ’sub’-prime minister basks in the military decisions which have, it seems, resulted in the imminent handing over of Basra to the Iraqi forces, The Spectator’s Fraser Fraser Nelson has some interesting thoughts on what he calls “Brown’s Betrayal of Basra”.
Excerpt:
‘As one of the few who supported the Iraq war and still admits it, I find all this sickening. The moment this government sent our troops to invade Basra, they took on a moral obligation to leave it better than they found it. We have a duty not just to the Iraqis, but to the memory of the 171 servicemen and women who gave their lives in what was then described as Iraq’s liberation. And if that was going to be more expensive, then Mr Brown would have to pay.
The White House has increased spending, and Baghdad is reaping the benefits of its troop surge. There is increasing talk of how the US may now have to go to Basra – and provide the security that the British government was unwilling to fund. This would be a damning indictment of British military resolve. Labour under Blair and Brown was quick to send our forces into battle, but never willing to meet the financial cost of this exercise.
Britain invaded Iraq with 46,000 troops. By October 2003 it was 10,000 - and even that was enough to keep Basra secure. But the cuts continued, today it’s less than 5,000 and by the spring it will be a 2,500 - a force barely big enough to protect itself. This rapid withdrawal created a vacuum which Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias have happily filled.
Result: Brown is walking away from a Basra where the dictatorship of Saddam has been replaced by the dictatorship of religious extremists. The latest example: Iraqi police have so far found the mutilated bodies of 40 women with notes warning against “violating Islamic teachings”. This is the type of society we are leaving behind. Cutting and running is not the British way. Yet it is hard to conclude this isn’t exactly what our Prime Minister has done here.’
*military decisions - explanation:
Since September this year the army in Basra has been involved in more or less covert deal-making with the Mahdi Army. The British army withdrew from the Palace to the airport, and in return, the insurgency killings diminished greatly.
WHO decided that?
According to a television production on Monday night, the army has complete freedom to make this sort of decision WITHOUT the permission of government or any politician. So, in that case, whether or not you approve, whether or not this is the “right thing to do”, whether you consider it capitulation or common sense, Mr GB/PM can hardly claim credit. No more, and perhaps even less, than can Mr Blair, who was the prime minister who set the timetable for withdrawal, all based on the timely training of the Iraqi forces in Basra.
BRITAIN’S IRAQ WAR IS ENDINGThis Reuters article describes Britain’s ‘withdrawal’ as a “draw” rather than a win or lose situation.‘Today, Sadr’s followers are halfway through a 6-month ceasefire that the cleric called in August. They and the security forces have avoided a showdown.So for now: call it a draw. (Editing by Tim Pearce)
Further excerpt:
Nearly five years after then Prime Minister Tony Blair sent 46,000 British troops to help the United States topple Saddam Hussein, Britain is keeping in place a force of just a few thousand, confined to a single air base near Basra city. London says its troops have done their job well. The areas they patrolled in southern Iraq will now be placed under the authority of newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police.”Things are getting better here for a very obvious reason,” Defence Secretary Des Browne told Reuters during a visit to Basra a month ago. “The Iraqis themselves are much more capable of taking responsibility for their own security.”Yet the outcome of Britain’s biggest overseas military campaign in more than 50 years feels at best ambiguous.Critics say Basra is now a place where Shi’ite militiamen administer justice and spray paint walls with threats to kill women who go out without veils. Interpreters who worked for the British have been kidnapped, tortured and killed.Some experts have concluded Britain lost its war.”It is quite clear that the British have been defeated, that they are essentially marginalised in an enclave,” U.S. analyst Anthony Cordesman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in August. That judgment may be too harsh.”The Blair government built this up into a valiant effort that would change the Middle East and become a beacon for the region, but that was never really an attainable objective given the resources they applied to it,” Tim Ripley, who writes for Janes defence publications, told Reuters over the weekend.”They were playing for a draw. That’s a more realistic assessment I’d say. Nil-nil. In extra time. Not pretty.”
My comment: Given the press pressure on the government in recent years and still today to “bring our troops home” and GB/PM’s need for something positive to fill the papers, as well as Mr Blair’s earlier announcement of the troop withdrawals, a draw migt be as goo as it gets, for th etime being. Extra time, in any case may not be quite as important as the replay for a Home game, later perhaps, if and when Blair spreads the spillover from his (hopefully) successful Middle East peace work in the wider area.
In The Guardian, 11th December, 2007. Is This Worrying Some?
MPs in warning on military treaty
Press Association
Tuesday December 11, 2007 1:13 AMA new treaty intended to ease the supply of military equipment from the United States to British forces must not be “blunted” by over-restrictive regulations, MPs have warned.The UK/US Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty was signed earlier this year by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush. However, the detailed implementing arrangements are still to be negotiated.The Commons Defence Committee said that it was important that they were not too tightly drawn or they would “seriously blunt the effectiveness” of the treaty.
Tags: basra, british withdrawal, brown, defeat, Iraq
