Amen.
Posted on 09/03/2007 7:08:23 AM PDT by nuconvert
Britain pulls out of downtown Basra base
By DAVID RISING
Associated Press Writer
Iraqi soldiers hoisted the nation's flag over the Basra palace compound Monday after British troops withdrew from their last garrison in the city, leaving the country's second biggest city largely in the hands in the hands of Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
At al-Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, meanwhile, President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq, hoping to bolster his case that the buildup of U.S. troops is helping stabilizing the country.
British vehicles rumbled out of the gates of the sprawling Basra Palace compound after dark Sunday and headed for the Basra's international airport, about 12 miles away, where the last of Britain's 5,500 soldiers are based.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the move was planned for months and that British troops would be available to help Iraqi forces "in certain circumstances.
"This is essentially a move from where we were in a combat role in four provinces, and now we are moving over time to being in an overwatch role," Brown told the British Broadcasting Corporation.
"We are able to give training. ... We are able to re-intervene in certain circumstances. The purpose of this has been to hand the security over from the British army to the Iraqi security forces."
Bush was joined by his top advisers, including National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was traveling there separately. The mission to shore up support for the war was shared with only a small circle of White House staffers and members of the media, who were told that if news of his trip leaked early, it would be scrapped.
The White House arranged Bush's trip as a showdown nears with Congress over whether his decision in January to order 30,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq is working. Some prominent GOP lawmakers have broken with Bush on his war strategy, but so far, most Republicans have stood with Bush. In exchange for their loyalty, they want to see substantial progress in Iraq soon.
U.S. officials have been concerned about the prospect of British troops handing over control of a city where armed militias hold sway. Basra controls a key land supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad and farther north, and is also near important oil fields.
In a report last June, the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, said Basra residents and militiamen would consider the British departure "not as an orderly withdrawal" but as "an ignominious defeat."
"Today, the city is controlled by militias, seemingly more powerful and unconstrained than before," the report said.
The report said Basra offered a "case study of Iraqs multiple and multiplying forms of violence" and a frightening picture of the country's future if coalition forces leave without power-sharing agreements among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to guarantee peace.
A British military statement said the operation began at 10 p.m. Sunday "with all British troops arriving at the airport by midday" Monday.
"There were no clashes or attacks on British forces during the operation. The formal handing-over of the Palaces will happen in the near future," British spokesman Maj. Matthew Bird said.
The departure of most of the remaining 500-member British force from the palace left the nation's second largest city without any multinational presence for the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.
"We told those (militias) who were fighting the British troops that the Iraqi forces are now in the palaces," Lt. Gen. Mohan al-Fireji, the Iraqi commander in the area. He said the last of the British force left about 4:30 a.m.
Iraq's defense minister said he was confident his military will be able to fill the vacuum and maintain security Basra.
"We are working very seriously to fill the security vacuum and we expect in the next few days to fill it in a good way," Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi said during a stopover in Beirut, Lebanon en route to Europe.
"And I am certain that the security situation will be much better," he added, saying British forces will act "as a backup for our forces when we request it."
The Basra palace had come under near daily rocket and mortar fire from Shiite militias until the British released about 30 gunmen a few months ago and spread the word that they would soon leave.
Over the past years, Britain's ability to control events in Basra waned as the militias rose in power.
People on the streets of Basra cheered the departure of the British.
"We are pleased that the Iraqi army are now taking over the situation. We as an Iraqi people reject occupation. We reject colonialism. We want our freedom," resident Rudha Muter told AP Television News.
Another resident, Khazaal al-Nisiri, said he was confident the Iraqi army could provide enough security without the British.
"We have recently seen intensive deployment for Iraqi security troops — this indicates that the Iraqi troops are in full control of the situation," he said. "So the British troops pullout won't cause a vacuum in the area — our security troops are carrying out their duty well."
Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's rule, Britain controlled security across southern Iraq, but has since handed over most of the territory to Iraqi forces.
Britain's Ministry of Defense said it hoped to hand security responsibility for Basra, the last remaining province, over to Iraqi forces sometime this autumn.
Brown has consistently refused to set a timetable for the overall withdrawal of British troops from the country, but the long anticipated pullout from the downtown palace will give the British government the option to pull out more than 500 soldiers immediately.
Ex-leader Tony Blair's decision to cut troops numbers in Iraq from 7,000 to 5,500 in February included an option of pulling out the soldiers based in the Basra palace once it was handed back to the Iraqis.
Britain's Defense Ministry said in a statement that U.S. officials were consulted over the plan, and offered assurances that there was still a large enough British presence in the area to provide security.
"The decision is an Iraqi-led initiative and is part of a coalition-endorsed process," the ministry said.
British forces will operate from Basra Air Station, but "retain security responsibility for Basra until we hand over to provincial Iraqi control, which we anticipate in the autumn," the statement said.
___
An Associated Press writer, whose name was withheld for security reasons, contributed to this story from Basra, Iraq.
Amen.
This is putting the best face on a big defeat. The Iranians are pulling all the string in Basrah. The vacuum in the South may be a leading indicator in dividing Iraq into three parts..Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. The Iranian Army could cross into the South today..and nothing would stop them.
“This is putting the best face on a big defeat.”
Carrying out the plan as intended is a defeat?
Was it a defeat for the US when they handed over Dahuk Erbil and Sulaymaniyah provinces?
The Iranian army could no more ‘cross over unopposed into Iraq’ today than yesterday. There are exactly the same number of British troops there, they are just now all at the main base at Basra airport. Maysan province which borders Iraq was handed over in April. Strangely, there has been no invasion there so far.
This troop withdrawal plan was announced in November of 2006 to a media orgasm.
If I'm not mistaken, this is just the execution of the plan.
Since that map is dated January, 2006...pretty sure the four southern provinces can now be colored Green, since the British turned over the other 3 outside of Basra already! Lotsa Green. It’s a shame, isn’t it, that AP MilBashSpeak is such ‘laborious’ reading....what with self-conflicting statements, BDS, etc. If Iranian militias are in Basra, that would be a great location to begin to defuse the Iranian influence, since Iraqi’s trust them not at all.
Take another look.
It is up to date to June 2007.
DoD was original source.
I just tweaked it a little.
“This troop withdrawal plan was announced in November of 2006 to a media orgasm.
If I’m not mistaken, this is just the execution of the plan.”
Technically it was announced long before that.
For example here is a Mr George Bush (you may have heard of him) on May 1st 2003:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq”
I could’ve sworn the ‘plan’ was to invade Iraq to deny Saddam the use of his WMD’s!
I think I can safely say that mission has been completed! :)
Well, true, that was how Tony Blair sold the deal, although it’s been pretty much established in the meantime that he had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time, so it doesn’t count.
But clearly once we’d participated in de-Saddaming the place, we had to do something with it.
And for the record I was not in favour of British troops participating in the invasion for reasons that have been largely vindicated in the time since. I never credited Blair’s doomsday warnings about WMD and, in the absence of a threat, did not feel that the sacrifice of British troops was worthwhile to establish what was always likely to be a state that would be vulnerable to control by whoever had the biggest militia and heavily influenced by Iran. Nor did I believe the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz-style lines about how our troops would be received, the length of commitment likely to be needed and how much the whole shebang would cost.
But, we went with it, and given the plan, the British army have performed admirably as ever and achieved their mission as given to them.
Not to mention the whole thing paid for itself.
Well, they may be carrying out the original plan, but the simple fact is that the Iranian backed militia seem to be in control now. There should be an emphasis on “seem”. The simple fact is that the Iranians, the media and everyone opposed to the action in Iraq is going to portray this as a big defeat. The truth of it will come out when we find out if the Iraqi army can maintain or improve the security situation there.
There were other reasons for invading Iraq, like, for instance, responding to Hussein's repeated missile attacks on coalition aircraft. As far as what has happened in Iraq since the invasion, your opinion on the matter is just one more indicator that when it comes to the heavy-lifting of defeating radical Islam, the Tories are not reliable allies. In fact, there is such a significant strain of anti-Americanism in the Tory party that it has blinded many British 'conservatives' to the big picture. All I can say in response is thank God for Tony Blair.
“Well, they may be carrying out the original plan, but the simple fact is that the Iranian backed militia seem to be in control now...... The truth of it will come out when we find out if the Iraqi army can maintain or improve the security situation there.”
That was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the plan we went in with though. If you oppose that, then before the war was the time to do so, too late now. And a lot of time the local security forces and the militia that you talk about aren’t actually different people. We’ve provided the circumstances whereby there are adequately trained and equiped local forces to ensure security and safety in the area. It’s up to the authorities there to now ensure that happens.
“There were other reasons for invading Iraq, like, for instance, responding to Hussein’s repeated missile attacks on coalition aircraft.”
Hmm, well I wouldn’t really have considered a few rusty old missiles being pot shotted in the vague direction of our aircraft as a good reason to pour in forty thousand British troops either.
But you’re wrong anyway (in the British context) in your assertion that there were other reasons. The declaration of war endorsed by the House of Commons specified the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the only justification, and Tony Blair was clearly on record with his belief that an invasion for any other reason would have been illegal.
“As far as what has happened in Iraq since the invasion, your opinion on the matter is just one more indicator that when it comes to the heavy-lifting of defeating radical Islam, the Tories are not reliable allies”
Well, my opinion, as I stated, was based on my judgement of British national interests. And I didn’t believe that allowing the establishment of another Shia majority state next to Iran, with the likely consequences of that, was in any way conducive to defeating radical Islam. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. Actually, the fact that so many people who apparantly were in favour of the invasion are now so keen to portray this handover as a defeat seems to indicate that a lot more people might agree, but just didn’t think it through properly at the time.
“In fact, there is such a significant strain of anti-Americanism in the Tory party that it has blinded many British ‘conservatives’ to the big picture”
The Conservative parliamentary party actually voted more strongly for the invasion than did Tony Blair’s party. As I said, I disagreed. Though I don’t really think any of my reasons could be defined as anti-Americanism.
“All I can say in response is thank God for Tony Blair.”
Do you want him? Actually I think we’ve sent him off to bother Israel now, so never mind.
‘In fact, there is such a significant strain of anti-Americanism in the Tory party that it has blinded many British ‘conservatives’ to the big picture. All I can say in response is thank God for Tony Blair.’
Britain is unique in so far as both of our main political parties support the war in Iraq. That cannot be said of America or even Australia. It seems natural to me for Conservatives in Britain to be anti-American when America elects Democrat majorities in both houses on a surrender in Iraq ticket. As far as I can see, a significant proportion of this forum hold anti-British views. But of course, anti-Americanism is evil and stupid, anti-Britishism is normal and acceptable! ;-)
Only a twit could suggest that the firing of SA-8's at coalition aircraft didn't constitute a threat And by the way, it wasn't a few sams that were fired at our aircraft, but thousands.
In a bygone era, it is inconceivable that the average British citizen would have considered Hussein's attacks on coalition aircraft anything other than an (repeated) act of war. But alas, that is a bygone era.
That is just bull. The Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq war just as the Tories did. And since then, the Democrats have moved away from full prosecution of the war just as the Tories have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.