Leaving Iraq would betray Britain, too

Telegraph ^ | 09/04/2004 | Alice Thomson

[Eurotwit]

A year ago today, I was interviewing the US Ambassador, William Stamps Farish III, when he stood up suddenly and shouted: "The big sucker's coming down." I looked at the television screen and watched as the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled over.

This polite Texan friend of the Queen couldn't contain himself. When I had first met him, two days after September 11, he had been in tears, reading out the messages of condolence from the British. He couldn't get over their kindness. But since the war against Iraq had begun, he had felt under siege in Britain from the anti-war protesters. "I finally feel vindicated," he said. "We did the right thing going to war. We are the liberators, not the aggressors. This will not be another Vietnam.''

As I left the embassy, the anti-war protesters were melting away. I felt sympathetic towards the ambassador. I had supported the need for war in Iraq, mainly on humanitarian grounds. The debate had split the country in two, leaving families and parties divided.

My husband had gone on the peace rally; the Archbishop of Canterbury and many Tories had been against the war. Meanwhile Ann Clywd, the Labour MP who once marched with the Greenham Common women, had been at the forefront of the calls to remove Saddam Hussein.

But for a short period after the statue fell, there was a consensus that it had been a successful war. When I travelled to Iraq the following week, I was still optimistic. The looting was horrendous. When I saw a Basra orphanage that had been stripped of every tile, I felt embarrassed that we seemed to have no post-war plan.

But from doctors to teachers, everyone was optimistic. There was no fear for a Western woman walking along the streets of Basra on her own. Two months later, I returned with the heir-apparent to the Iraqi throne, Sharif Ali bin-Hussein, on the first commercial flight to Baghdad. The returning Iraqis, a group of exiled businessmen, poets and academics, were jubilant.

Then came David Kelly's death. The Hutton inquiry re-focused everyone's minds on why the allies had gone to war. The lack of WMD became an embarrassment. The people of Iraq were forgotten. The battle that summer was the BBC against the Government.

Increasingly, all either side cared about were the details. When a group from The Daily Telegraph had lunch with the Prime Minister before Christmas, he was buoyant that Saddam had been captured. He thought it would draw a line under the bickering.

But one year on, Britain has been forced to confront the issue again. This has been the most depressing week in Iraq since the invasion, with body bags on the front pages of the American and British broadsheets. The allies now find themselves in armed conflict with a well-organised militia of Shias, the very Iraqis who were repressed so brutally under Saddam, as well as trying to contain the Sunnis.

The week started with the televised murder and mutilation of four American contractors in Fallujah. Next, eight Americans were killed in a fight against Moqtada al-Sadr's Shia militia, a dozen more in fighting with Sunnis. In retaliation, US troops sealed off Fallujah; 40 civilians were killed when an American missile hit the compound attached to a mosque. Iraq's fledgling police force haven't got a chance of sorting this out. No wonder this week's Baghdad trade fair had to be postponed.

Tony Blair, while paying lip service to immigration with his well-publicised summit, is said to be far more exercised by Iraq. The country is not yet on the brink of civil war, nor as Senator Edward Kennedy says, is it "George Bush's Vietnam", but it's becoming difficult for those of us who were staunch supporters to sound confident. Meanwhile Robin Cook, who staked his career on his anti-war stance, re-occupied the moral high ground on the Today programme yesterday.

There is now a new split: between those who believe British and American troops should stay in Iraq, and those who want to withdraw on the handover date of June 30. It crosses all the old lines. On radio phone-ins in Britain, anti-war campaigners say the troops can't quit now. Meanwhile, less than half of previously gung-ho Americans currently favour keeping troops in Iraq until there is a stable government.

Why, a friend at the American embassy asked me yesterday, do the previously anti-war Brits now feel so strongly that troops should stay? For the old Tory grandees, it is a question of history. Pulling out of India led to a bloodbath, Partition and the continuing conflict over Kashmir. Britain's rapid departure from parts of Africa was no more successful. Iraq looks set to go the same way if President Bush pulls out before the next election. For the younger generation of anti-war protesters, many believe that, although the war was wrong, the least the Americans and the British can do is to clear up the mess they have caused.

In contrast, many Americans believe that they have already done Iraq a massive favour by getting rid of Saddam, and have no further obligation to nation-build. Their view of history is swayed not by their refusal to see through their commitments in Somalia and Lebanon, but by Vietnam. In an election year, if enough Americans come to believe this, the White House will, too.

This is Mr Blair's chance. In Britain, both those who were for and against the war now believe that troops must remain to try to help create a democratic Iraq - with or without the United Nations. When he meets President Bush in Washington next week, the Prime Minister must convince him that America needs to stay the course, and explain that any attempt to withdraw prematurely would be to betray not only the Iraqis, but Britain as well.

[Skywarner]

Ping to our British allies helping us in the fight which will eventually be known in history books as World War III.

[Support Free Republic]

1Thanks for the pic sciencediet :0)>	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[prairiebreeze]

the Prime Minister must convince him that America needs to stay the course, and explain that any attempt to withdraw prematurely would be to betray not only the Iraqis, but Britain as well.

Alice needs to take a deep breath. Or twelve. And she needs to stop listening to American media polls. No way is this President going to pull out of Iraq. Blair knows that, too bad for Alice that she doesn't.

Prairie

[Alia]

Alice Thornton seems very most emotional about the deep divide in "society" over WOT. If this is the first Britan has encountered of it; then I suggest she spend time in the areas of the US between the red and blue zones. Them's "civil war" zones very much like she describes is happening now in Britan. It's time for good warriors to stand up against socialist thugs, in England, and everywhere.

[McGavin999]

There is NO question but that President Bush will stay strong. That is not the problem at all. Our troops will be there until the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and this dust up will not make him falter.

What good would it to do win the election if he loses the moral high ground. He would just be stuck at the head of a country that would be the target for every terrorist in the world. No, there is no need to worry about President Bush pulling out our troops.

The Brits need to understand why he insists on the turnover June 30th. He gave his word and the Iraqi people must know that if we say something, we mean it. THAT is why the turnover date is so important.