UK Basra base exit 'not a defeat'

[blakey]

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown has insisted that the withdrawal of British troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra is not a defeat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6975375.stm

"The 550 soldiers have handed Basra Palace over to Iraqi control and joined 5,000 UK troops at their last base, near Basra Airport, outside the city.
The Ministry of Defence said the handover of Basra province was now due in the autumn.
Mr Brown insisted the withdrawal was "pre-planned and organised" and said UK forces would take an "overwatch" role.
This will mean troops cannot go out unless requested by Iraqi authorities, but they will still train and mentor Iraqi security forces.
The PM told the BBC's Today programme that the number of British troops in Iraq would remain roughly the same, and that they could "re-intervene" if necessary."

"British troops started pulling out of Basra Palace in southern Iraq on Sunday night, and the MoD confirmed the withdrawal was complete on Monday.
It added in a statement said: "Handing over Basra Palace to the Iraqi authorities has long been our intention, as we have stated publicly on numerous occasions."
Maj Mike Shearer, British spokesman in Basra, said a bugler from Four Rifles led the advance at 0100 local time."

"BBC correspondent Richard Galpin in Baghdad said this was a "highly symbolic moment, marking the end of Britain's physical military presence in any Iraqi city".
Over the past year British forces have handed over control of three Iraqi southern provinces, with only Basra province remaining under their control."
also

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295576,00.html

"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.""


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wor...505be67cba2b506e&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS



- what does everyone think ?

- is this a step forwards or backwards ?

 

[hedonis]

Well good, let's see some more of these cities and provinces handed over to Iraqi authorities.

H

 

[hammerer]

May actually show limited progress, as the south of iraq has had less violence than the north. If local authorities are ready to take over, its a step nearer to US withdrawl.

 

[free4440273]

...and a step nearer to all-out civil war.

 

[dick van cock]

Okay then... Britain moves out.

When will Iran officially march in?

 

[Friday on my mind]

...and a step nearer to all-out civil war.

Well unfortunately the invasion seems to have made a civil war inevitable.Seems like Iraq under Saddam was a much better situation to me than what we have wrought.

Okay then... Britain moves out.

When will Iran officially march in?

Iran IMO will not officially move in.Unoffically they are already there,and thats good enough for them I would think.

 

[thorsif]

Well good, let's see some more of these cities and provinces handed over to Iraqi authorities.

H

Well said. Lets bring our troops home

 

[free4440273]

Iran says uranium goal reached

It would be ironic indeed if, just as international troops are pulling out from areas of Iraq, the USA and Nato were to invade Iran. How realistic a possibility this is, well that's always been open to debate. Thus far, the debate has been a war of words...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...ory?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[blakey]

this exit is quite a contrast to what george w was saying in iraq yesterday

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6976250.stm

"Mr Bush is facing pressure at home for a US withdrawal, but he insisted any pull out will only result from a "calm assessment" by leaders on the ground.
"Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media," said Mr Bush, addressing troops at the base on the US Labor Day holiday.

"In other words when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." "



- my question would have to be "is it possible for that position of strength and success to be achieved in iraq, and if it is, will that require more troops to be sent to iraq ? "
<possibly more US troops may be required to replace UK troops if they are removed to serve in afghanistan or for political reasons>

 

[tartanterrier]

I think best that they do pull out and let the Iraqis get on with it.It's their country at the end of the day so surely they have to find a way to sort it out.

 

[dick van cock]

I think best that they do pull out and let the Iraqis get on with it.It's their country at the end of the day so surely they have to find a way to sort it out.

What we're currently dealing with:

- Iraqi police is infiltrated by Shia militias. It cannot be counted on in stabilizing the country.

- of the ten divisions of the Iraqi Army, three are (more or less) deployable. These are the units that can count on soldiers who had already been enlisted under Saddam.

- the seven remaining divisions are hopeless. When the 9th Iraqi Division went on its first mission last November, a US military adviser reports, "we had to intervene and help them out AFTER JUST FIVE MINUTES"

How can you seriously expect that Iraqi forces take over the country when they're as desolate as they appear to be right now?

Either the USA prolongs its presence indefinitely to ensure a smidgen of stability. Or we give up Iraq, have it divided up sectarian lines - which would ultimately result in full-out war in the mixed Sunni-Shia zone around Baghdad and a de-facto hand-over of the South to Iran.

The Alliance has lost the war already. But an immediate retreat will increase damage by emboldening Iran.

 

[free4440273]

Re: Iran says uranium goal reached

It would be ironic indeed if, just as international troops are pulling out from areas of Iraq, the USA and Nato were to invade Iran. How realistic a possibility this is, well that's always been open to debate. Thus far, the debate has been a war of words...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...ory?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

Iran is taking its 'cue' from developments (lack of) in Iraq: troops pulling out, USA elections forthcoming, Bush no longer in the ascendancy, and troops in Afghanistan stuck in retreat...this is not going to play out well, at the risk of sounding obvious. edit: throw Pakistan into the equation and this looks ominous.

 

[Friday on my mind]

What we're currently dealing with:

- Iraqi police is infiltrated by Shia militias. It cannot be counted on in stabilizing the country.

- of the ten divisions of the Iraqi Army, three are (more or less) deployable. These are the units that can count on soldiers who had already been enlisted under Saddam.

- the seven remaining divisions are hopeless. When the 9th Iraqi Division went on its first mission last November, a US military adviser reports, "we had to intervene and help them out AFTER JUST FIVE MINUTES"

How can you seriously expect that Iraqi forces take over the country when they're as desolate as they appear to be right now?

Either the USA prolongs its presence indefinitely to ensure a smidgen of stability. Or we give up Iraq, have it divided up sectarian lines - which would ultimately result in full-out war in the mixed Sunni-Shia zone around Baghdad and a de-facto hand-over of the South to Iran.

The Alliance has lost the war already. But an immediate retreat will increase damage by emboldening Iran.

Staying longer without a real plan is just delaying the inevitable and will lead to more Coalition and Iraqi dead.If we wish to avoid a shiite takeover which is aligned with Iran the only way to do that IMO is to pick a Sunni strongman and arm the sunnis and let them crush anyone who opposes them.Stop all the talk of coalition govt where all are equal,that is obviously not in the cards no matter how much WE may want it.

 

[blakey]

Either the USA prolongs its presence indefinitely to ensure a smidgen of stability.

the thing is it appears many, if not most, people in iraq and the arab world in general wish western troops to leave as soon as possible

- staying there, against this popular opposition would seem as likely as not to make things worse in the long term
then if the us needs to commit more troops and resources
the situation may edge closer, bit by bit, over time to resembling a new vietnam

Or we give up Iraq, have it divided up sectarian lines - which would ultimately result in full-out war in the mixed Sunni-Shia zone around Baghdad and a de-facto hand-over of the South to Iran.

The Alliance has lost the war already. But an immediate retreat will increase damage by emboldening Iran.

we know there are no easy answers
- i think it would be better if iraq remained united, but i don't know if it'll be possible for it to remain that way,
without a "charismatic" authoritarian leader in the mould of tito or even, gulp, saddam

:2 cents:

 

[dick van cock]

Staying longer without a real plan is just delaying the inevitable and will lead to more Coalition and Iraqi dead.If we wish to avoid a shiite takeover which is aligned with Iran the only way to do that IMO is to pick a Sunni strongman and arm the sunnis and let them crush anyone who opposes them.Stop all the talk of coalition govt where all are equal,that is obviously not in the cards no matter how much WE may want it.

We already had that before the war... Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard. With the demilitarized zones in Kurdistan and the South he was contained in terms of repeating the Kuwait adventure of 1990 / 91. Who cares about the minority oppression back then?

Let's be cynical. The only reasons we have to engage in the Middle East are:

1) crude oil
2) Israel

Prior 2003, Number 1) was provided through grey channels between Iraq and Turkey (a NATO ally); Number 2) was guaranteed by having Saddam confined to the Sunni portion of his country.

Saddam was a wall of stability. We never should have removed him in the first place.

Israel's position has significantly weakened over the last four years. Let's hope for the best...