posted by Damozel |
"As British leave, Basra deteriorates." Present plans call for British troops garrisoned at Basra Palace where---according to a Labour MP---they are "surrounded like cowboys and indians" to break camp and hand it over to the Iraqis. (Guardian) Subsequently, 5000 Brits are to remain at a base at an airport on the western outskirts of the city. (Guardian) Unfortunately, things in Basra aren't going at all well.
Once a thriving and cosmopolitan port, Basra is now a battleground for rival Shiite groups, all of whom want control of the oil resources.
Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said (Washington Post).
The British government is "deeply frustrated" that the Iraqis haven't managed to build up a credible police and military force that would permit them to make a clean exit (Guardian). It doesn't look as if that's going to happen, does it? As they abandon Basra Palace, the 5000+ troops holed up behind sandbags at the airport base "has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months."(Washington Post). British troops are the object of 90% of the attacks in Basra (Guardian)
British military commanders say that Britain should get out as soon as possible. Said one "senior defence source": ""If we want the Iraqis to be responsible for their own security then there comes a point when they must do that. Otherwise there's no point in training them."(Guardian)
The situation in Basra doesn't really fit into "the administration's narrative of the Iraq war," suggests The Washington Post.
For the past four years, the administration's narrative of the Iraq war has centered on al-Qaeda, Iran and the sectarian violence they have promoted. But in the homogenous south -- where there are virtually no U.S. troops or al-Qaeda fighters, few Sunnis, and by most accounts limited influence by Iran -- Shiite militias fight one another as well as British troops. A British strategy launched last fall to reclaim Basra neighborhoods from violent actors -- similar to the current U.S. strategy in Baghdad -- brought no lasting success.... (Washington Post).
Emphasis on "lasting." Things apparently seemed better for awhile and then went downhill again. Though maybe the emphasis should be on "success," which the Brits are learning to redefine. "The British have basically been defeated in the south," a senior U.S. intelligence official evidently said.(Washington Post). The Brits are reframing "success" to reflect lowered expectations.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of defence staff, echoed the frustration in a recent interview with the BBC. Basra had been a success, he said, though that depended on "what your intepretation of the mission was in the first place". The mission was to "get the place and the people to a state where Iraqis could run this part of the country" he said, adding pointedly, "if they chose to".(Guardian)
The Brown government says that the standard for troop withdrawal is "condition based."(Guardian) In other words, they leave as and when the Iraqi security forces are ready for them to hand over the task to them. The troops who remain at the Basra airport are to be on "overwatch," training the Iraqi security forces and on hand to help them out in a crisis. (Guardian) But the British military doesn't think 5000 troops will be enough.(Guardian) "Military commentators say the force would soon become demoralised and besieged."(Guardian)
As for the Iraqi forces who are to replace the Brits, "Brigadier Chris Hughes, the MoD's most senior officer responsible for military commitments, told the Commons defence committee last week that an Iraqi general had told him some police officers were "totally incompetent"." (Guardian) Note that it was an Iraqi general who said this.
So why, you ask can't Prime Minister Maliki's government get a handle on this? Is it because they're too busy enjoying their infamous month long August vacation?
No; in fact, they're preparing right now to take control. It's just that there are some problems, and some of them have nothing to do with the competence or training of the security forces.
As it prepares to take control of Basra, the government of Prime Minister Maliki has dispatched new generals to head the army and police forces there. But the warring militias are part of factions in the government itself, including radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- -- whose Mahdi Army is believed responsible for most of the recent attacks on the airport compound -- as well as the Fadhila, or Islamic Virtue Party, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the country's largest Shiite party.
In March, Fadhila pulled out of Maliki's ruling alliance of Shiite parties in Baghdad after it lost control of the petroleum ministry to the Supreme Council. Last week, under pressure from the council, Maliki fired the Fadhila governor of Basra. Fadhila has refused to relinquish power over the governate or over Basra's lucrative oil refineries, calling the Maliki government "the new Baath" -- a reference to Hussein's Sunni-led political party -- and appealed the dismissal to Iraq's constitutional court.
Jockeying for political power in Baghdad has long since translated into shooting battles in Basra. The militias have shifted alliances with one another, as well as with the British and with Iran as they fight for control of neighborhoods and resources. With the escalation of street battles and assassinations, much of the population is confined to homes and is fearful of Islamic rules imposed by militias(Washington Post)..
As Chief Air Mashal Jock Stirrup put it, "I'm afraid people had, in many instances, unrealistic aspirations." (Guardian)
Bush, who seems to have had a reasonably good "dialogue" with Gordon Brown last week, is meant to be privately disappointed in the Brits' decision to pull back from Basra (Washington Post). But I don't think British military leaders have any faith in the "surge" and it's pretty clear that the UK's Iraq Commission isn't expecting any lasting improvement there.
American officials who understand the region are concerned that the Basra model may ultimately be "replicated throughout the Iraqi Shiite homeland from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf.." (Washington Post; link in original). Evidently the Pentagon recently commissioned a series of war games based on the theme of "war among Shiites after a reduction in U.S. forces." (Washington Post)\
LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED
Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, As British leave, Basra Deteriorates (Washington Post).
Comments