(Updated) Assessing the British End Game in Iraq
The announced pullout of more British troops from Iraq – in reality the end game for the U.S.’s most steadfast Coalition partner — can be viewed as a dress rehearsal of a sort for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
I say “of a sort” because the city of Basra and the oil-rich southeastern part of Iraq have been relatively tranquil compared to Baghdad in the center of the country and Anbar Province in the west.
Under the phased withdrawal plan, British troops would leave the Basra city center for a command post at the airport where they still can keep an eye on the border with Iran and the Iraqi troops and security forces that they have trained. One reason for this decision is that they have come under increased attacks involving roadside bombs.
British PM Tony Blair is peddling the line that it’s “mission accomplished,” and a White House desperate for good news has enthusiastically endorsed that assessment.
But this outbreak of feel good-ism masks a couple of realities:
First, Blair’s popularity and that of his Labor Party, like President Bush and his Republican Party, has tanked and the long moribund Tories and Democrats are ascendant.
The biggest reason for these reversals of fortune is that a war that Bush started but has been unable to finish has been backed to the hilt by Blair and is now widely viewed as an unmitigated disaster. (Some 132 Brits have died in the conflict, a far cry from the 3,148 Americans, but substantially more any of the 18 other Coalition nations, who have suffered a total of 124 deaths.)
In short, Blair is desperate to save his legacy. It is not unfair to say that Bush has squandered his.
Second, a British withdrawal has been all but inevitable since General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, warned publicly last October that the presence of U.K. troops in Iraq was “exacerbating security problems” and called for a pull-out.
Although Dannatt was chided for his candor, he was spot-on correct and the same grisly conundrum holds true for American forces.
The biggest concern about the drawdown is that it’s not at all clear that Basra is capable of running its own affairs without armed British nannies. Additionally, there has been a pattern of attacks by insurgents not long after the British (and Australians) have handed over responsibility for a particular post or area to Iraqi forces.
What is going to keep this pattern from continuing and even growing? Nothing.
Mideast expert Juan Cole’s assessment is blistering:
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 Sadr-controlled Maysan 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 four paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.
The one bit of good news is that British forces will now be able to concentrate more on operations in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are re-emergent in part because of the drain of troops and resources because of the Iraq war.
But in the end the British withdrawal will be the first major test of whether the Iraqis are capable of being masters of their own destiny, which begs the question of whether Blair’s “mission accomplished” line may be as pyrrhic as Bush’s.
13 Responses to “(Updated) Assessing the British End Game in Iraq”
Shaun’s post raises an interesting question: What would “Mission Accomplished” look like in Iraq?
By most accounts, the south of Iraq is quiet, as the Shi’a dominate.
Much the same can be said of the north where the Kurds dominate.
I doubt there are any conditions under which Bush would be allowed by the MSM to say the US job in Iraq was done. All the insurgents need to do is denotate one suicide bomb, and the media would point to it as failure.
But it does seem that way to me that the war is winding down, to be honest.
There is no possibility of a Baathist return. Saddam and his dynasty are exterminated. The Sunni cannot hope for revival, only survival. The government, corrupt and brutal like most in the region, is more secure with each passing day.
After this Surge/Sweep, it does not seem to be to be any constructive reason for a massive US presence that I can see. RE: Shaun’s quote of the British general, foreign troops would only be “exacerbating security problemsâ€?.
So what is the US endgame?
Marlowecan:
The U.S. has no endgame and never has beyond the vague notion of growing democracy and letting a central government run the show.
Growing democracy has been a sham despite the earnest wishes of a majority of Iraqis. The central government is a front for Shiite ethnic cleansing.
The U.S. ignited the fire that became the civil war and then has kept throwing gasoline on it. It is now in a position where it has to take sides. That would be taking sides with the Shiites even though its biggest friends in the region — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — are run by Sunnis. What a mess!
I am simply unable to envisage a U.S. endgame as have the Brits in a far smaller and far less turbulent corner of Iraq.
I take no pleasure in this. We simply have had a president who has been in way over his head from Day One. It is a tragegy of incalculable proportions.
[...] Just at the moment, I’d say that the Bush administration is far less concerned about al Qaeda than about Iraq, and a comment by Shaun Mullen (on his own post at TMV) highlights the utterly impossible, irreconcileable position we’ve landed in: The U.S. ignited the fire that became the civil war and then has kept throwing gasoline on it. It is now in a position where it has to take sides. That would be taking sides with the Shiites even though its biggest friends in the region — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — are run by Sunnis. What a mess! [...]
Um, is it just me, or is it quite the coincidence that this decision was made just as a member of the Royal Family is set to be deployed to Iraq?
AR Which one of the Bush twins is going to fight the GWOT – Babs or Jenna?
Shaun said: “The U.S. has no endgame and never has beyond the vague notion of growing democracy and letting a central government run the show.”
Unfortunately, I completely agree. I find this extremely puzzling, as it seems to me almost supernaturally stupid.
A couple of years ago, I thought there was some game plan in place…a model or criteria for withdrawal…leaving a few bases/airfields etc.
“I take no pleasure in this. We simply have had a president who has been in way over his head from Day One. It is a tragegy of incalculable proportions.”
We can’t know until the histories get written, but my feeling is that you are correct in focusing on Bush. There seems to be something odd…stubborn…behind this business. No planning…just stubborness…that reflects his character.
God, what a business…
Actually, I would have agreed up until this week. But now I think the plan is to get rid of as many Sunni insurgents as possible, establish a temporary lull in the fighting, then turn the whole mess over to the Shiite government after declaring total and absolute victory. Shiites get to dominate Iraq, W gets his victory, Exxon-mobil gets its preferential oil leases, and US forces get to start withdrawing. Win-win- except for those civilians who are unlucky enough to be left in Iraq after the US decides we’ve won the war.
Kritter, why do you think that?
I mean, I would hope you are right, but I do not see signs of Bush thinking beyond an open-ended committment. Just an add more troops and stay the course strategy.
Is there something I’ve missed?
“…except for those civilians who are unlucky enough to be left in Iraq after the US decides we’ve won the war.”
I don’t mean to sound totally ruthless, but there is going to be a surge in bloodletting whenever the US withdraws. It seems to me logical to withdraw earlier…and then the US isn’t contributing to the slaughter at least. Get the mess of settling accounts out of the way, and the country might be able to move forward earlier.
Marlow- Just little snippets that I’ve been picking up from cable news. I saw a piece last night on Hardball featuring Richard Engel, who has been over there for most of the war. He described the four phases that the war has been going through- invasion, counterinsurgency, civil war, and the final stage- the surge.
Engel mentioned that he believes that the Shiites are holding back to allow the US and Iraqi army to defeat the Sunni insurgency. They know that they will be the ones dominating the country eventually if they just hold out. That’s why Sadr disappeared temporarily. Its a smart move- why should they be fighting us and the Sunnis at the same time?
I had also read a while back that the WH was looking at lowering the goal in Iraq from democracy to stability, so that our military can be used for other global threats if need be. They know that a prolonged presence will spoil the GOP’s chances in ’08, and so will kill a few bad guys, declare victory and then start to follow the British out of the country.
I could be wrong and don’t have links (MSNBC.com has the Engel interview if you’re interested) but that’s what I think the plan is for the endgame.
Why would the Shi’ites “let” the US defeat the Sunni insurgency when the US has been unable to do it the last 3 years?
If you follow Juan Cole regularly, you’d see that Basra is actually little more than a den of local Shi’ite warlords who regularly shoot each other up, and who terrorize all non-Islamists. It gets much more play in the British press than in the American media because the British are around it. The South is nothing like the Kurdish North.
Why would the Shi’ites “let� the US defeat the Sunni insurgency when the US has been unable to do it the last 3 years?
Because they know that the war is more unpopular than ever in the US, and that we may begin pulling out a lot sooner if they keep interfering. I think this pressure has been applied to Maliki-even without timelines and he knows the government would collapse without our presence. Its the last card we hold.
Al Sadr is content with the surge because he knows he can still do his thing after the surge is over. Additionally, he is happy to have the US clean up some of the rogue militias and criminal gangs that he can’t control (per John Burns and other reporters). SCIRI, on the other hand, would be happy about any moves against their rivals, the Mahdi army.
I wonder if the US has any real idea who it is helping in this mess, or whether all the inrigues are just too much to grasp.
The British, I think, just accepted that they can’t prevent the inevitable outcome of Iran’s domination of Basra. Iran is investing heavily there (Najaf airport and other develpment projects) Eventually, it might end up having to deal with the tribal and militia conflicts in the area to protect its investments. That would require bribes or funding. I’m hoping that Iran will overextend its economic capabilities with its outside projects.
This would be a great time for Europe and Russia to step up economic pressure on Iran, but, or course, they have their own agenda.