Basra pull-out sends a clear message
September 04, 2007
Britain's decision is a wake-up call for Iraq
THE great strength that justified the US-led coalition campaign to remove dictator Saddam Hussein and help build democracy in Iraq was the fact it was always conceived as a liberation, not occupation. As such, military intervention came with the guarantee that foreign troops would one day leave and political decision-making and security enforcement would be left in the hands of an elected Iraqi government. The withdrawal of British troops from a former presidential palace compound in the southern Iraq city of Basra to a military base near the airport is a welcome first sign that this promise is coming closer to reality.
There are, of course, many layers of politics at play in Britain's decision. For the UK, the decision reflects a desire by newly appointed Prime Minister Gordon Brown to differentiate his premiership from that of the recently retired Tony Blair. It is calculated to take some heat out of the Iraq issue in preparation for what could well be an early general election. For Washington, Britain's decision is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has the potential to send a worrying message to insurgent forces and any wavering coalition partners that America's major ally in Iraq has watered down its commitment. On the other hand, Britain's staged retreat sends a much-needed message to the Iraqi Government, led by Nouri al-Maliki, that local politicians must face the reality that foreign troops will not be in Iraq forever and they must step up to the plate. This is exactly the message that John Howard has been emphasising to Mr Maliki in recent correspondence. It will also test the political capacity of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has wide support in the region.
Britain's decision to negotiate with Sadr and begin to withdraw troops should not be seen as confirmation that it has abandoned support for the coalition objectives in Iraq. Basra is not Baghdad, and removing 500 troops from the city does not signal a unilateral withdrawal. Rather, it represents the first stage of a carefully managed soft transfer of authority to Iraqi forces. By pulling troops out at night, without the glare of publicity, Britain has sought to limit the opportunity for insurgent forces to briefly escalate the level of violence, providing an easy but superficial comparison with America's humiliating military retreat from Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War. The next phase in Britain's strategy in southern Iraq will be a formal handover of control of the city to Iraqi forces, which is expected to happen sometime in October.
In the meantime, Britain will retain a 5500-strong troop presence at its military base near Basra airport from which it will be able quickly to provide military assistance to Iraqi forces if required. Britain will continue to train local troops and help Iraqi patrols secure the river border with Iran.
For Australia, Britain's decision to phase down the Basra City deployment will no doubt be taken up in a domestic political context already heightened by the arrival today of US President George W. Bush. Mr Bush will meet both the Prime Minister and Kevin Rudd, and each side will be keen publicly to accentuate the differences in their approach to Iraq when in reality the differences are minor.
Both sides are planning to withdraw the 500 Australian combat troops deployed to southern Iraq when the present rotation is completed mid-next year. Both sides will retain the other approximate 900 troops in the region, including the navy presence helping to protect Iraq's oil export facilities in the Persian Gulf, security details helping to safeguard Australian diplomats and officials in Baghdad and military trainers helping to build the capacity of Iraqi military personnel throughout the region. Both sides have also made firm commitments to maintain Australia's troop presence in Afghanistan, which is generally considered the real front-line in the war on terror.
Despite Britain's decision, Mr Bush, when he meets Mr Howard and the Opposition Leader this week, will find the Government remains rock solid in its support for the US campaign in Iraq, where favourable reports are finally starting to emerge from what had seemed to be intractable high levels of sectarian violence in Baghdad following the surge in US troop numbers and a change of approach. Mr Rudd will be able to highlight his long record of support for the US but will be diplomatic in his rebuttal of Mr Bush's request that should it win office, Labor consider the conditions on the ground in Iraq before making any decision to reduce Australia's commitment.
Aside from political emphasis, the only real point of difference between the Government and the Oppostion on Iraq is the Government's plan to consider increasing the training effort once combat troops have been withdrawn. The success or otherwise of the British handover of security responsibility in Basra may prove very relevant to how this plays out.
The irony is that the boots-on-the-ground tactics being employed by the US military to stabilise conditions in Baghdad is the approach adopted by British troops in Basra from the outset, using the lessons learned from years spent attempting to build a peace in Northern Ireland. Britain's decision to start a staged withdrawal of troops from Iraq by no means signifies mission accomplished, but neither should it be seen as proof America's key ally has decided to cut and run. Rather it should be seen as a clear signal to the Iraqi Government to get its house in order because coalition forces will not be there forever.
theaustralian.news.com.au |
