the39steps
08-12-2007, 07:07 PM
The troops will leave, but should we cheer?
Sean Rayment, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 12/08/2007
In a few months' time, Gordon Brown will rise in the House of Commons and announce that the time has come for British troops to withdraw from Iraq. For the Prime Minister, the move will signify a final severing from the old Blair regime and, he hopes, allow Labour to benefit at the next election from a healthy feelgood factor.
To great fanfare Mr Brown will declare that the "dividend" from this act will allow Britain to increase its military commitment in Afghanistan in order to protect that country from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.
Praise will rightly be heaped upon our armed forces for their efforts and sacrifices and Mr Brown's decision will be applauded across Britain by a grateful public, thankful that they have a prime minister willing to make bold decisions in the national interest. George Bush, under pressure from a Republican Party increasingly disillusioned by the war in Iraq, will surely follow suit shortly after.
Doubtless, in some quarters, the final withdrawal will lead to renewed claims - similar to those which appeared in the American press last week -that Britain has been defeated in southern Iraq. This is not the case. True, our armed forces have suffered many casualties but, from the five years I spent in the Parachute Regiment, two of them fighting terrorists in Northern Ireland, soldiers expect to sustain losses on operations and increasing casualty rates do not amount to mission failure.
Instead British troops are being bombed out of Iraq because the whole military strategy has been fatally undermined by flawed political decision-making based on incorrect military assumptions. Britain is effectively being forced to withdraw because it is locked into another conflict in Afghanistan, to which it has committed long-term military support. Our armed forces have neither the personnel nor equipment to fight two wars on two fronts.
Back in the late spring of 2005, when Iraq's future still appeared relatively optimistic, the Government, backed by the military, took the strategic decision to commit itself to the expansion of the International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Britain would send a force of somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 troops to Helmand Province to provide the security which would allow reconstruction to begin.
Military chiefs thought such a course was achievable because by 2006 they "assumed", the "war" in Iraq would effectively be over. By then, Iraq would be free and prosperous and the hand-over to the Iraqis of the four provinces in the southern British-controlled zone would be a pain-free exercise. This would allow Britain, along with its Nato partners, to concentrate on putting things right in Afghanistan.
Today these bold assumptions seem like folly. Instead of becoming more stable, Basra, like large parts of the rest of Iraq, has descended into a bloody cycle of violence as different militia groups vie for power, motivated by the knowledge that Britain intends to leave.
The security situation has now deteriorated to such an extent that the beleaguered British force based in the city, which was once heralded as a model for a post-invasion Iraq, seems barely able to protect itself. British troops are now being killed at a proportionally greater rate than their American allies in Baghdad, and barely a day passes without depressing news of yet another casualty. Last week the British death toll rose by four to 168. In the past eight months, 41 have been killed. Such is the level of violence directed at British troops that they now expect to be attacked within 20 minutes of leaving their base in Basra - little wonder that reconstruction has ground to a halt.
So, yes: in some respects leaving Iraq will be good news. But there are other considerations. There will, for example, be little cheering amongst a growing number of senior Army officers who believe that the withdrawal of the coalition will plummet Iraq into a maelstrom of violence and chaos that will eclipse anything witnessed since the invasion in 2003.
While it is widely accepted across the Army that British troops are now part of the security problem, many believe withdrawal is simply playing into the hands of the militias and terror groups who now hold sway across the country. They also argue that leaving Iraq in order to concentrate on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan amounts to backing the wrong runner in a two-horse race.
Iraq sits on the crossroads of the Middle East and possesses the world's second-largest oil reserves. It is also, many in the military believe, where the real war against the rise of militant Islam is being fought and will continue to be fought for years to come.
By contrast, Afghanistan is a country which is likely to need billions in aid for decades to come to help it recover from the ravages of 30 years of war. It has little or no infrastructure, hardly any roads, the professional classes departed with the rise of the Taliban and, apart from opium and carpets, it produces virtually nothing. Its strategic importance is minimal and as long as Nato has a presence in the country al-Qaeda will never be able to rebuild its bases.
Senior officers now lay out a doomsday scenario for what may well follow. It goes something like this. Iraq splits along ethnic lines into three de facto states composed of Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. Months of brutal ethnic cleansing follow and Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which all border Iraq, are gradually sucked into the conflict.
In the West, according to this scenario, the crisis leads to rocketing oil prices, soaring inflation and climbing interest rates. Thousands of workers are made redundant and the housing market collapses. Home owners who borrowed up to five times their salaries to buy over-priced properties are forced to sell at a massive loss and the country plummets into a deep recession.
Fearing that Iraq could become an Islamic fundamentalist state ready and willing to give aid to groups like al-Qaeda, the West decides that the only solution to the crisis is to re-invade at the "request" of the Iraqi government in a bid to restore order. This time, however, the British and Americans are forced to fight every inch of the way from the Kuwaiti border to Baghdad. Each Iraqi hamlet, village and town is turned into an impregnable fortress, every road is mined. The cost in human life is immense and success is far from guaranteed.
So, while we should be thankful when Mr Brown finally pulls our troops out of harm's way, we must also be prepared for what may follow.
Sean Rayment, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 12/08/2007
In a few months' time, Gordon Brown will rise in the House of Commons and announce that the time has come for British troops to withdraw from Iraq. For the Prime Minister, the move will signify a final severing from the old Blair regime and, he hopes, allow Labour to benefit at the next election from a healthy feelgood factor.
To great fanfare Mr Brown will declare that the "dividend" from this act will allow Britain to increase its military commitment in Afghanistan in order to protect that country from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.
Praise will rightly be heaped upon our armed forces for their efforts and sacrifices and Mr Brown's decision will be applauded across Britain by a grateful public, thankful that they have a prime minister willing to make bold decisions in the national interest. George Bush, under pressure from a Republican Party increasingly disillusioned by the war in Iraq, will surely follow suit shortly after.
Doubtless, in some quarters, the final withdrawal will lead to renewed claims - similar to those which appeared in the American press last week -that Britain has been defeated in southern Iraq. This is not the case. True, our armed forces have suffered many casualties but, from the five years I spent in the Parachute Regiment, two of them fighting terrorists in Northern Ireland, soldiers expect to sustain losses on operations and increasing casualty rates do not amount to mission failure.
Instead British troops are being bombed out of Iraq because the whole military strategy has been fatally undermined by flawed political decision-making based on incorrect military assumptions. Britain is effectively being forced to withdraw because it is locked into another conflict in Afghanistan, to which it has committed long-term military support. Our armed forces have neither the personnel nor equipment to fight two wars on two fronts.
Back in the late spring of 2005, when Iraq's future still appeared relatively optimistic, the Government, backed by the military, took the strategic decision to commit itself to the expansion of the International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Britain would send a force of somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 troops to Helmand Province to provide the security which would allow reconstruction to begin.
Military chiefs thought such a course was achievable because by 2006 they "assumed", the "war" in Iraq would effectively be over. By then, Iraq would be free and prosperous and the hand-over to the Iraqis of the four provinces in the southern British-controlled zone would be a pain-free exercise. This would allow Britain, along with its Nato partners, to concentrate on putting things right in Afghanistan.
Today these bold assumptions seem like folly. Instead of becoming more stable, Basra, like large parts of the rest of Iraq, has descended into a bloody cycle of violence as different militia groups vie for power, motivated by the knowledge that Britain intends to leave.
The security situation has now deteriorated to such an extent that the beleaguered British force based in the city, which was once heralded as a model for a post-invasion Iraq, seems barely able to protect itself. British troops are now being killed at a proportionally greater rate than their American allies in Baghdad, and barely a day passes without depressing news of yet another casualty. Last week the British death toll rose by four to 168. In the past eight months, 41 have been killed. Such is the level of violence directed at British troops that they now expect to be attacked within 20 minutes of leaving their base in Basra - little wonder that reconstruction has ground to a halt.
So, yes: in some respects leaving Iraq will be good news. But there are other considerations. There will, for example, be little cheering amongst a growing number of senior Army officers who believe that the withdrawal of the coalition will plummet Iraq into a maelstrom of violence and chaos that will eclipse anything witnessed since the invasion in 2003.
While it is widely accepted across the Army that British troops are now part of the security problem, many believe withdrawal is simply playing into the hands of the militias and terror groups who now hold sway across the country. They also argue that leaving Iraq in order to concentrate on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan amounts to backing the wrong runner in a two-horse race.
Iraq sits on the crossroads of the Middle East and possesses the world's second-largest oil reserves. It is also, many in the military believe, where the real war against the rise of militant Islam is being fought and will continue to be fought for years to come.
By contrast, Afghanistan is a country which is likely to need billions in aid for decades to come to help it recover from the ravages of 30 years of war. It has little or no infrastructure, hardly any roads, the professional classes departed with the rise of the Taliban and, apart from opium and carpets, it produces virtually nothing. Its strategic importance is minimal and as long as Nato has a presence in the country al-Qaeda will never be able to rebuild its bases.
Senior officers now lay out a doomsday scenario for what may well follow. It goes something like this. Iraq splits along ethnic lines into three de facto states composed of Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. Months of brutal ethnic cleansing follow and Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, which all border Iraq, are gradually sucked into the conflict.
In the West, according to this scenario, the crisis leads to rocketing oil prices, soaring inflation and climbing interest rates. Thousands of workers are made redundant and the housing market collapses. Home owners who borrowed up to five times their salaries to buy over-priced properties are forced to sell at a massive loss and the country plummets into a deep recession.
Fearing that Iraq could become an Islamic fundamentalist state ready and willing to give aid to groups like al-Qaeda, the West decides that the only solution to the crisis is to re-invade at the "request" of the Iraqi government in a bid to restore order. This time, however, the British and Americans are forced to fight every inch of the way from the Kuwaiti border to Baghdad. Each Iraqi hamlet, village and town is turned into an impregnable fortress, every road is mined. The cost in human life is immense and success is far from guaranteed.
So, while we should be thankful when Mr Brown finally pulls our troops out of harm's way, we must also be prepared for what may follow.