Gwynne Dyer" name=description>
Bookmark Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Go-Jamaica Gleaner Classifieds Discover Jamaica Youth Link Jamaica
Business Directory Go Shopping inns of jamaica Local Communities

Home
Lead Stories
News
Business
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
Profiles in Medicine
Caribbean
International
The Star
E-Financial Gleaner
Overseas News
The Voice
Communities
Hospitality Jamaica
Google
Web
Jamaica- gleaner.com

Archives
1998 - Now (HTML)
1834 - Now (PDF)
Services
Find a Jamaican
Careers
Library
Power 106FM
Weather
Subscriptions
News by E-mail
Newsletter
Print Subscriptions
Interactive
Chat
Dating & Love
Free Email
Guestbook
ScreenSavers
Submit a Letter
WebCam
Weekly Poll
About Us
Advertising
Gleaner Company
Contact Us
Other News
Stabroek News

British retreat from Iraq
published: Wednesday | August 22, 2007

Gwynne Dyer, Contributor

"The British have given up and they know they will be leaving Iraq soon," said Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mehdi army, the country's most powerful militia group, in an interview with the Independent. "They have realised this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win."

Every word he said is true, and most senior officers in the British army know it. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, said last year, Britain "should get out (of Iraq) some time soon."

There are 5,500 British troops in Iraq, by far the largest foreign army after the Americans, but they control almost nothing except the ground they are standing on. Five hundred of them are under permanent siege in Basra Palace, in the middle of Iraq's second-biggest city, and the rest are at the airport outside of town, under constant attack by rocket and mortar fire. They have almost no influence over the three rival Shia militias and the associated criminals who actually run the city and fight over the large sums of money to be made from stolen oil.

Wait-and-see policy

Forty-one British soldiers have died in Iraq already this year, compared to 29 in the whole of last year. The deaths are wasted and it's high time to go home, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reluctant to anger the White House by pulling all the British troops out before the Americans are ready to leave. That, however, is unlikely to happen before President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, as British generals are well aware.

The Democrats in Congress have clearly decided that they prefer to see the Republicans go into the election late next year with the albatross of Iraq still tied firmly around their necks, rather than mount a Congressional revolt, cut off funds for the war, and take the blame for the defeat.

President Bush says his policy is to "wait to see what David (Petraeus) has to say" when the commanding general in Iraq reports on what progress the 'surge' is making in mid-September. But Mr. Bush didn't fire the previous United States (U.S.) commanders in Iraq and gave Petraeus the job without knowing in advance what he would say.

Petraeus will see light at the end of the tunnel, as he always does. The Democratic majorities in Congress will criticise his report, but not rebel against it, and U.S. troops will probably stay in Iraq at roughly the present numbers until President Bush leaves office 17 months from now. Several thousand American soldiers will have to die to serve these agendas, but so will around a hundred British troops.

Afghanistan war still winnable

British generals are deeply unhappy at this prospect, but as students of the indirect approach in strategy, they have chosen to argue -not so much that the war in Iraq is lost (though it is) - but that the war in Afghanistan is still winnable. So the reason we must get British troops out of Iraq now is not just to avoid more useless deaths, but to win by reinforcing our commitment in Afghanistan, which is the truly vital theatre in the 'war on terror'.

General Dannatt was at it again last week, telling the BBC during a visit to Afghanistan that "The army is certainly stretched. And when I say that we can't deploy any more battle groups (in Afghanistan) at the present moment, that's because we're trying to get a reasonable balance of life for our people." The too-frequent cycle of combat deployments is certainly harming Britain's forces, with divorces and suicides soaring and retention rates plummeting, but Dannatt's unspoken sub-text was: 'you can fix this by pulling us out of Iraq.'

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, too, in the long run, and President Hamid Karzai's best chance of survival is for theWestern troops to leave soon. Then he would at least be free to make the deals with warlords, drug-dealers and renegade Taliban, in the traditional Afghan style, that would secure his authority and prolong his life.

When Gordon Brown faces Parliament again in October, his biggest Iraq problem will not be pressure from the public. It will be pressure from the army.


Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

More Commentary



Print this Page

Letters to the Editor

Most Popular Stories





© Copyright 1997-2007 Gleaner Company Ltd.
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Letters to the Editor | Suggestions | Add our RSS feed
Home - Jamaica Gleaner