We have no reason to stay in Basra and ought to pull out
Blair missed his best chance to withdraw from Iraq last year. The rising death toll shows how the British are really seen
guardian: Tony Blair's folly in taking Britain to war in Iraq is blood under the bridge, a blunder that cannot be reversed. But Blair made a second mistake that is less often discussed. He should have withdrawn British troops from southern Iraq as soon as it was clear that they were not serving a useful purpose. Instead, out of the same "strategic" motive of wanting to show George Bush that Britain was Washington's most faithful ally, Blair has kept British forces long after he needed to. He was wrong to send British forces in. He is wrong not to take them out.
Every day the cost of this disastrous refusal becomes more serious, though it does not percolate through to the public at home with the urgency it deserves. Because of the greater volume of news, the British media send reporters to the Iraqi capital rather than Basra.
Lulled by the official - "off the record, old boy" - claim that British troops behave better than Americans, or that Basra is inhabited by Shias who welcomed Saddam Hussein's overthrow (a view that British reporters embedded with UK troops often repeat), many people in the UK feel that life under British occupation is far better than in Baghdad.
But the rising death toll of British troops belies the notion of a peaceful region where they are loved. Seven were killed last week, the highest number in any week since the invasion three years ago. Five died in the downing of a helicopter, hit by ground fire according to police, although the army says an investigation is still going on. (Here there is a difference with the Americans. They usually take less time to confirm how an aircraft came down.)
With 111 dead, the rate of British fatalities is about the same as the American rate, given that the US has 20 times as many troops in Iraq. US forces mount large offensives more frequently than the British, so the drip-drip of British soldiers' deaths by attrition is actually worse than in the US-occupied areas.
Iraqis resent British forces with a passion that surprises the troops themselves. "You think you know these people but you don't," exclaimed a British sergeant when he found young Iraqis excitedly gloating over the downed helicopter last week. His confusion is as old as colonialism, the shock of truth when occupiers realise the populace is not as grateful or contented as they thought. Read more
guardian: Tony Blair's folly in taking Britain to war in Iraq is blood under the bridge, a blunder that cannot be reversed. But Blair made a second mistake that is less often discussed. He should have withdrawn British troops from southern Iraq as soon as it was clear that they were not serving a useful purpose. Instead, out of the same "strategic" motive of wanting to show George Bush that Britain was Washington's most faithful ally, Blair has kept British forces long after he needed to. He was wrong to send British forces in. He is wrong not to take them out.
Every day the cost of this disastrous refusal becomes more serious, though it does not percolate through to the public at home with the urgency it deserves. Because of the greater volume of news, the British media send reporters to the Iraqi capital rather than Basra.
Lulled by the official - "off the record, old boy" - claim that British troops behave better than Americans, or that Basra is inhabited by Shias who welcomed Saddam Hussein's overthrow (a view that British reporters embedded with UK troops often repeat), many people in the UK feel that life under British occupation is far better than in Baghdad.
But the rising death toll of British troops belies the notion of a peaceful region where they are loved. Seven were killed last week, the highest number in any week since the invasion three years ago. Five died in the downing of a helicopter, hit by ground fire according to police, although the army says an investigation is still going on. (Here there is a difference with the Americans. They usually take less time to confirm how an aircraft came down.)
With 111 dead, the rate of British fatalities is about the same as the American rate, given that the US has 20 times as many troops in Iraq. US forces mount large offensives more frequently than the British, so the drip-drip of British soldiers' deaths by attrition is actually worse than in the US-occupied areas.
Iraqis resent British forces with a passion that surprises the troops themselves. "You think you know these people but you don't," exclaimed a British sergeant when he found young Iraqis excitedly gloating over the downed helicopter last week. His confusion is as old as colonialism, the shock of truth when occupiers realise the populace is not as grateful or contented as they thought. Read more
posted by exoplanet at 2:11 AM
<< Home