Honeymoon over for British in Basra
uploaded 26 Jun 2003The post-war calm enjoyed by British troops is almost certainly over, more than two months after the fall of Basra.
For weeks British commanders prided themselves on the peace they had established in their sector in southern Iraq, in contrast with the "shambolic" US administration further north and the almost daily shootings faced by American soldiers.
One senior British officer said earlier this month that the worst his men faced was being "caught in the crossfire" of village disputes.
British success was attributed to friendlier patrolling on foot and without helmets, greater pragmatism in dealing with officials from Saddam Hussein's regime, and the long experience of "colonial" conflicts.
But after the death of six British soldiers yesterday, the easy assumption that British forces are welcome wherever they go in Iraq will have to be re-examined.
Iraq remains a dangerous place for both American and British soldiers and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Guns are plentiful, rivalries are endemic, society has broken down and there are many people - both inside and outside the country - who resent the presence of foreign forces in Iraq.
There is no sign that either America or Britain is planning to withdraw from Iraq any time soon. If anything, all the signals point to a prolonged occupation lasting years rather than months.
From the Tories, at least, there is no pressure to pull out British forces. On the contrary, Bernard Jenkin, the Tory defence spokesman, said: "We have the best trained and equipped troops to deal with these threats, but if we require more troops in Iraq to operate safely, then the Government must send more troops."
Nevertheless, a sharp increase in British and American casualties will inevitably raise awkward questions about whether the allies are becoming "bogged down" in Iraq and further undermine the Prime Minister's political position - particularly within the Labour Party.
British commanders and officials will be analysing every detail of yesterday's incidents. Were they a clash with cross-border smugglers? Were they a "spill-over" of unrest in US-controlled Sunni areas? Or, most worrying, were they a signal that parts of the Shia majority have joined the anti-coalition forces?
British forces have arguably been fortunate to control a sector where most of the population is made up of Shias who suffered under Saddam and had the most to gain from his removal.
However, the Americans are struggling to pacify the Sunni heartland that produced the core of the former regime and most resents the occupation.
Earlier this month one senior British official said: "Until now the unrest has been limited to Sunnis. If the Shias rise up, it will be a very serious problem indeed."
According to Whitehall sources, British ministers in recent weeks have been "very worried" about the situation in Iraq. But having come this far, Tony Blair is unlikely to turn his back on President George W Bush.
Instead, he will be privately urging the Bush administration quickly to get a grip on the security situation, restore public services and, above all, show a demonstrable path towards establishing a credible Iraqi government.
But for the moment Paul Bremer, the US chief administrator, has slowed down the political process. He scrapped plans to hold a major political conference in Baghdad next month to choose an interim government. Instead, the US and Britain will rule directly in consultation with appointed Iraqis.
At the same time, the Iraqi army has been disbanded and will be rebuilt from scratch.
Senior British officials have embraced Mr Bremer as a vast improvement on his predecessor, the retired general Jay Garner. But they believe he is running out of time.
Their ill-disguised fear is that a prolonged occupation, no matter how enlightened, will eventually stir nationalist resentment in Iraq.
Some British officials point to the experience of Britain in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Having "liberated" Arabs from Turkish rule after the First World War, British forces soon had to put down bloody rebellions in Egypt, Palestine and Iraq.
"The Americans have read all about how Douglas MacArthur stayed in Japan for several years and transformed the country," said one British source. "But the lesson of the British colonial experiences in the 1920s is that having liberated Iraqis, we should not overstay our welcome."
In other words, Britain will not abandon the Americans, but it desperately wants Washington to come up with an exit strategy.
Source: Telegraph / UK
