03/28/2008 (11:30 am)
The Fighting in Basra: What Happens if the US Withdraws
Want to know what would happen to Iraq if a Democrat wins in November and fulfills their promise to remove US troops? Take a look at what’s happening in Basra, at the southern tip of Iraq.
British forces were responsible for the south of Iraq, where a great deal of the oil is located; Basra is the hub of the Iraqi oil industry. The British, who always regarded their role as passive peace-keeping rather than counter-insurgency, have been gradually drawing down their force size since September. However, they never completely controlled the city of Basra, which is being held by rival militias: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi army, both of which are Shia and supported by Iran (which is a mere 10 miles away), and the smaller Fadillah Party. Basra has been quiet because the Mahdi Army declared a cease-fire after fighting the ISCI in Karbala last August, but that appears to be collapsing as the rival militias struggle for control of Basra, and with it, the ability to take a cut of oil revenues.
Short version: pull the troops out, and Iraq becomes a clone of places like Somalia or Nigeria, ruled by warlords.
From the Times of London (my emphasis):
British forces, who can probably cobble together an armoured battle group of a few hundred soldiers, may well be asked to intervene should the Iraqi offensive fail. If that happens, any hope of the withdrawal promised by Gordon Brown last year of another 1,500 British troops this spring will have to be shelved until Basra can be stabilised.
It may even be necessary to reinforce the British contingent with more combat troops, something that the Ministry of Defence can ill afford as it prepares for the fighting season in Afghanistan.
The only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq. That would mean an ignominious withdrawal and handing over control of Basra to the Americans, who grudgingly would have to take over responsibility for the south. As American officers and officials have privately made clear, much of today’s problems in Basra can be traced back to Britain’s failure to commit the forces necessary to control Basra and southern Iraq in general.
Whereas President Bush’s “surge” tactic of sending 30,000 reinforcements to central Iraq has succeeded in bringing down the level of violence in Baghdad and Anbar province, the Americans believe that the gradual withdrawal of British troops from the south has had the opposite effect, a point that Mr al-Maliki and his soldiers are discovering to their cost on the streets of Basra today.
Sure enough, the Washington Post reports this morning that their reporters spotted four US armored vehicles in Basra, heard US weapons, and watched US helicopters and drones overfly the city.
Hot Air concurs that this illustrates the need for keeping troops in Iraq until the militias are under control. US military forces tore the Mahdi Army to shreds in Fallujah back in 2004, and may have to do it again if the British cannot bring the city under control. Fred Kaplan at Slate.com (whose Democratic Tourette’s Syndrome renders him unable to resist Opus 3,269,834,271 of “Bush, what an idiot,” despite the fact that Basra is a British failure) reports rumors that Iraqi President Maliki has ties to the ISCI and ordered the violence to prevent the Mahdi Army from winning upcoming provincial elections. Also, there’s a brief but informative discussion of the factions in Basra at the Christian Science Monitor, albeit from 2006.
Map of Iraq from Lonely Planet.
« « President Bush Praises Iraqi Progress | Main | Obamayawn » »
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
