News that we sometimes miss

Posted on | April 30, 2009 |

Today the British contingent finally pulled out of Basra, Iraq, thus ending the British presence in the area. This has not been blazoned in the media. The British presence was not large, surely, but they were practically the only set of allies the US ever had in Iraq, and now they’re gone. The Bush administration, with its contempt for consensus building and working with allies did not choose to notice the British decision to withdraw, announced in the middle of last year, of course. This was before the Republican defeat at the polls was even a glimmer.

One of the things that we may forget though is that the British were rather successful in Basra - at least for a while. Their foot patrols were lightly armed and wore berets not helmets, specifically so that the soldiers could be seen as people not robots. This allowed them to interact with locals in the streets, build trust, and facilitate infrastructure rebuilding. And for a while they were able to do that. Unfortunately the US military policies in Baghdad were heavy handed, and the money flow for reconstruction was beset with corruption and delays. Abu Grahib didn’t help either. Insurgents from Iran saw their chance, and moved in. The US troops were seen, increasingly, as the problem, not the solution.

No one is saying it in so many words but the point can be inferred. The British chose to leave because the US policy in Iraq had never been thought trough properly, while the British had a pretty clear idea of what would be needed and what could be attempted, and set about trying to empower the local political processes. They left because they felt that the US policy was fundamentally flawed. What’s the point of making your corner of the county work if down the road mayhem is is spreading?

The British are now re-enforcing Afghanistan, where a coalition of forces is working to try and stabilize a situation that has been made far worse by the confusions in Iraq. Let us hope they can do so.

Comments