Why It’s Different
Gerard Baker explains why there is a great deal of difference between the situation in Southern Iraq and the situation that the US forces have faced in the rest of the country, particularly Baghdad. As he explains, British forces have been steadily declining in numbers since the initial phases of the war. The further reductions that Tony Blair announced are neither cause for celebration on the left nor a cause for gloom among war supporters.
The first point to note, is that, as the prime minister himself said in his statement to the House of Commons, the British troop presence in Iraq – unlike the US – has been on a steady downward trajectory since the initial phase of the war ended in May 2003. At one point total UK military personnel in the region numbered close to 40,000. By the end of 2004, the number stationed in the UK-command sector of Iraq – around Basra in the southeast of the country – was just over 9,000. Two years ago it was reduced to the current level of roughly 7,100. With yesterday's announcement , the new total will be about 5,500.
This is, obviously, well below the 150,000-plus troops the US will have in Iraq once the new counter-insurgency strategy is fully under way but it is still a long way ahead of the next largest contingent of the coalition, Poland at around 2,000. It hardly represents a retreat or a surrender, still less an abandonment of the US.
Second, the task facing the British forces in and around Basra has always been rather different from the challenge facing the US forces elsewhere. Basra is ethnically and religiously largely homogeneous – more than 80 per cent of the population is Shia Arab. For some time now the main source of violence in Basra has been twofold – extremist Islamist groups attacking British forces; and, much more important, intra-Shia Arab conflict – some of it political, some of it, simply criminal.
The other, overlooked, fact is that Britain is trying to expand its commitment in Afghanistan and is stretched thin at the moment. Not that the calls to remove troops from there won't go into full cry the moment the last British boots are off the ground in Iraq. Don't believe it? In the Guardian, Jonathan Steele is arguing that British forces should have abandoned Iraq in 2005. In other words, we demand forces pull out yesterday. How long will it be until the same voices are raised against the war in Afghanistan? And demand a retroactive withdrawal?
By Former Republican, February 22, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Not a cause for gloom among war supporter? You are kidding yourself, Gaius. Okay, supose everything around Basra is just ducky. Great, send the British troops elsewhere in Iraq. Make them part of the surge. Or send them somewhere they will free up American troops for the surge. The US could certainly find uses for those British troops, but the Brits aren’t willing to let them stay. The Brits aren’t willing to support the surge. One more member of the coalition is drifting away, as politely as possible under the circumstances. The Brits are no longer an enthusiastic ally, Gaius. Once Blair is gone, I doubt they’ll be an ally at all, at least in Iraq. The Brits have brains enough to know this war is effectively lost and have been acting accordingly.
By cfaller96, February 22, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Well, this explains why the conditions are different for British and American troops, but it doesn’t explain why conditions can dictate a withdrawal for Britain, but can’t dictate a withdrawal for the United States.
Sure, the differing conditions in southern Iraq and the rest of the country will dictate different schedules for withdrawal in those regions, but it wouldn’t change the actual strategy of withdrawing according to conditions. The Brits can do it, why can’t we?
By Chris, February 23, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
OK, the British can withdraw because the conditions permit it, or at least in the opinion of their leadership the conditions permit it, but the Americans can’t add troops because the conditions warrant it, at least in the opinion of our leadership? I don’t follow your logic. You can withdraw troops from quieter sectors. You can add troops to more violent ones. The British are free to deploy their troops into and out of whatever theaters they choose. We can deploy our troops into and out of whatever theaters we choose.
Gee, you don’t suppose we gave the Brits the quieter south to limit Tony Blair’s exposure, do you? You don’t suppose anyone else has noticed that aside from Blair, there isn’t much support in Britain for this fight?