Britain, Kuwait may benefit in post-war equation

The Hindu ^ | Mar 23, 2003 | Atul Aneja

[mikeIII]

MANAMA March 22. As the British and U.S. forces seek to consolidate their hold over Southern Iraq, the faint contours of a post-war power sharing arrangement in this area are beginning to emerge.

In a significant development, Kuwaiti troops showed up in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, soon after the British and U.S. forces took it over on Friday, and hoisted their national flag over a captured building. The move was significant on two counts. First, it symbolically avenged Kuwait's invasion by Iraq 13 years ago. But more importantly, military analysts are veering to the view that Umm Qasr could be Kuwait's reward for offering nearly half of its territory as a launch pad for a U.S. attack on Iraq. This base, however, may not be formally attached to Kuwait because of the Anglo-American pledge not to partition Iraq after the war. But a perceptible Kuwaiti presence there, backed by the U.S. and British military power, can now be expected at the end of the war.

In turn, Kuwait's influence at the head of the Persian Gulf could be an event of far reaching consequences. For instance, Iran, which after the Islamic revolution in 1979 had to contend with Iraq for the control over the Shatt al Arab waterway, may now have Kuwait, backed by London and Washington, as a new strategic rival at its doorstep. From Umm Qasr, Kuwait would be in a position to impose its influence over the Shatt Al Arab — a key 193 km. long channel that has carried oil supplies from Basra and the Iranian oil city of Abadan into the Persian Gulf waters. Another event, which is likely to be of crucial importance, has been the tactical manoeuvring by British and U.S. forces on the outskirts of Basra.

After conducting coordinated operations in the Faw Peninsula, Umm Qasr and Rumaila oil fields, U.S. and British forces split up near Basra. While British forces were left to takeover Basra, U.S. troops turned northwest in the direction of the Euphrates. These troops travelled rapidly, and in parallel with another column from the U.S. first and third Infantry divisions. Both headed in the general direction of Baghdad.

Consequently, the British, after a gap of nearly nine decades, find themselves at the gates of Basra. It was on November 19, 1914, that the British Commander, General Arthur Barret, then heading 7,000 troops was about to takeover Basra from the Turkish forces, which then belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Incidentally, Gen. Barret, who had headed towards Iraq from Bombay, was commanding Indian troops belonging to the Indian Expeditionary Force.

It was the Indian troops who had cleared the Faw Peninsula on November 6 1914, while Basra was taken over by them, under British command, on November 22.

Military analysts point out that it is expected that the British would retain a military presence in and around Basra after the war. If that happens, it would be the first time since the Suez crisis of 1956, that the British would be able to establish a foothold east of the Suez Canal.

Ironically, in encouraging the British to do so, the U.S. President, George Bush, would be reversing a decision made by his predecessor Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had gone to great lengths to deny London, as well as Paris, a military influence east of the Suez.

[mikeIII]

Kilroy was here? Imperial Britain, with Indian troops, drove the Turks out of Basra and Faw peninsula in 1914!

[mikeIII]

You might find this bit of history interesting!

[mrsmith]

Thanks, a very interesting article.

[mikeIII]

You're welcome!