Thursday, August 23, 2007

Brits Prepare to Leave Iraq

Normally we don't talk much here about the invasion and occupation of Iraq and how it's going. But these two stories from the UK fit together to paint a picture that we might want to be aware of.

First, from the Independent:
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.

Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months. Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay

Sixty rocket and mortar attacks a day, showering down on the palace where the British army is staying? It does sound it might be time to leave.
Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

The British actually seem to be able to talk about this among themselves, and their media seem to be able to report the news without simply parroting government talking points.

Like this:
There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces.

You'd never see that in the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Editor & Publisher has a related story:
LONDON An adviser to the U.S. military said British troops have lost control of the Iraqi city of Basra and face an "ugly" withdrawal in the coming months, a British newspaper reported.

Stephen Biddle, a member of a group that advised U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq last year, told the Sunday Times that "insurgents are calling the shots" in the southern city.

"I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history," Biddle was quoted as saying by the newspaper. The insurgents "in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of town." U.S. Adviser Tells London Paper: Brits Have Lost Basra

I don't think there's any way you can spin this to make it look like the good guys are winning.
Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, said insurgents and militia groups were likely to target British soldiers with ambushes, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades as they leave.

"It will be a hard withdrawal. They want the image of a British defeat," Biddle told the paper. "It will be ugly and embarrassing."

A total of 168 British personnel have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

Sounds like they're outta there. Sometimes you win one, sometimes you lose ... whatever it was Kenny Rogers said.

7 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Wow, the same newspaper that employs Robert Fisk...nice touch. To be honest, I prefer to get feedback from those that may have an interest in seeing the issues here in morally clear terms, like this US member of Congress,

http://www.theolympian.com
/news/story/192500.html

Start Quote
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.
End Quote

First the Brits embarass themselves in Iran...really quite disgraceful since what Iran did was an Act of War. And now they are trying to figure out how to leave Iraq without appearing to be that dog with it's tail between its legs. What could be next? Perhaps this,

Chávez deal to aid low-income Londoners

Lee Glendinning
Tuesday August 21, 2007
The Guardian

Up to a million people on income support will be eligible for half fares on London's buses under Ken Livingstone's oil deal with Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's president.

Single parents, carers, the long-term sick and disabled people will benefit from the plan, first mooted during Mr Chávez's visit to the UK last year, paying 50p for a single journey if they use an Oystercard.


Sorry to disappoint, but I generally think it best NOT to take advice from losers.

August 23, 2007 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's amazing how many losers can come to command countries and all their resources. Bush and Chavez, two peas in that pod.

August 23, 2007 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's part of the Baird story that Orin chose to omit:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.


I'll see your Democratic Representative and raise you one GOP Senator. Today's USA Today reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Warner said Thursday President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.

The move puts the prominent Republican at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush earlier this year.

The departure of even a small number of U.S. service members — perhaps 5,000 out of the 160,000 troops in Iraq — would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out, he said.

"We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action," he told reporters after a White House meeting with Bush's top aides.

Warner's new position is a sharp challenge to a wartime president that will undoubtedly color the upcoming Iraq debate on Capitol Hill. Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to brief members on the war's progress.

A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, declined to say whether Bush might consider Warner's suggestion.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-23-iraq-congress_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

I bet that if you were to ask Rep. Baird if he favors a non-"hasty pullout" to "show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended" he'd agree.

August 24, 2007 7:39 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Orin said "First the Brits embarass themselves in Iran...really quite disgraceful since what Iran did was an Act of War. And now they are trying to figure out how to leave Iraq without appearing to be that dog with it's tail between its legs".

Way to go Orin, that was classic "ugly American". Instead of thanking the British for the help you got you insult them for the assistance you didn't deserve in the first place. This was Bush's mess and its up to him to clean it up. I agree with Baird, Bush was a fool to go into Iraq in the first place, but now that he's made his bed he has no choice but to lie in it until the job's done - no one owes him any assistance in his mistake.

August 24, 2007 6:26 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea writes,

I'll see your Democratic Representative and raise you one GOP Senator. Today's USA Today reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Warner said Thursday President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.

Sen. John Warner has *never* struck as having much political courage, and this only confirms that impression. Perhaps he should run for President...no, wait, he can do that by offering his unsolicited advice to the Commander in Chief. Loser...

Then Randi writes,

Way to go Orin, that was classic "ugly American".

LOL...Randi, apparently you do not know that I consider the term "Ugly American" as a compliment if that means putting American interests first (and expecting that other countries will do exactly the same).

Instead of thanking the British for the help you got you insult them for the assistance you didn't deserve in the first place.

The incident with Iran was a sad event indicative of a country that has yet farther to fall. The behavior of those that were captured was disgraceful and I hope they train incoming soldiers not to repeat this mistake.

This was Bush's mess and its up to him to clean it up. I agree with Baird, Bush was a fool to go into Iraq in the first place, but now that he's made his bed he has no choice but to lie in it until the job's done - no one owes him any assistance in his mistake.

Since you are Canadian I would not expect you to understand the way the US works. We have a republican (small "r") form of government and they deliberated and gave Bush authority to wage war on Iraq (not to mention that since there was no peace treaty after the Gulf War, it really did not require any re-authorization).

August 25, 2007 10:12 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Orin said "I consider the term "Ugly American" as a compliment if that means putting American interests first (and expecting that other countries will do exactly the same)."

Then you have no basis on which to complain when the British put their interests first and leave Iraq. In this case that's not what "ugly American" means, it means assuming superiority when you demonstrate inferiority. Once again you display your immorality based on "in group loyalty", as you said yourself you fail to see yourself in the other and that is responsible for the hate and violence in the world. A decent and moral person sees themselves as a global citizen and believes in the equality of all - you stand for inequality and hence immorality, its people like you that are the reason why there are wars and violence in the world.

Orin said "The incident with Iran was a sad event indicative of a country that has yet farther to fall. The behavior of those that were captured was disgraceful".

The incident was trivial and irrelevant. It doesn't matter in any way shape or form except to those who need a pathetic excuse to proclaim their superiority when they have none. The captured soldiers did the right thing, only a moron would sacrifice their life for no reason. Those soldiers are free and alive and you'd have had them die for no gain whatsoever - you're not the brightest person in the world.

Orin said "Since you are Canadian I would not expect you to understand the way the US works.".

Since I'm Canadian I'm objective and can understand the U.S. better than you can yourself - you can't see the forest for the trees. Your insular navel gazing blinds you to the reality of global politics and this is why you are in the mess you are with Iraq which has increased animosity towards the U.S. rather than having lessened it. You can't see beyond your own borders and "ugly american" mentality and that's why you can't avoid always being the bull in the china shop of global politics.

Orin said "We have a republican (small "r") form of government and they deliberated and gave Bush authority to wage war on Iraq (not to mention that since there was no peace treaty after the Gulf War, it really did not require any re-authorization).".

So what? You're not telling me anything I don't already know and its irrelevant to anything I said. The fact is that you foolishly made this mess and you're morally obligated to stay in Iraq until its cleaned up, not that I'd expect Americans such as yourself to live up to any sort of moral obligations - after all Americans come first, right? Who cares what happens to anyone else, right? The rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as the U.S. is okay, right?

August 25, 2007 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's long past time to fold 'em when you're more struck by the political courage of a lying, war-avoiding party boy than a distinguished veteran of two wars and former Secretary of the Navy who has served Congress for nearly 30 years.

August 26, 2007 12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home