Half of British troops to leave Iraq

Now that British troops have moved to an air base on the outskirts of Basra, they are set to move half of their forces to Kuwait by the end of the year. This will leave South Korea, with its 3500 troops who never leave their base, as the second-largest "ally" in Iraq. Seven other countries have less than 100 troops in Iraq and these provide no counter-insurgency role. It's rapidly becoming an American-only effort, with the rest of the world wanting nothing to do with it. Those that do stay have an agenda that has little to do with Iraq. Georgia, for example, with its 300 troops in Iraq, wants to stay on Bush's good side so that the U.S. will protect it from Russian hegemony. For the sake of 300 troops in this disaster, we are setting ourselves up for involvement in yet another conflict with Russia. The same goes for the seven or so Eastern European nations with troops in Iraq; they want our support against Russia, so they send their token forces. Latvia has two troops in Iraq, for example.

Bush is desperately trying to push the UN into Iraq, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to be taking the bait. Bush said we would "go it alone" in Iraq, if necessary. The world is apparently taking him at word.

So not only is the occupation of Iraq setting up wars against Iran and Syria, it is setting us up for long-term military confrontations with Turkey and Russia. This is at the same time as we defend Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Then there is Venezuela, where the apparent plan seems to be to back the Zulia governor in a secessionist movement. Zulia province has oil, so we are, of course, deeply concerned about it. Since Venezuela is a democracy where its leader, Chavez, is repeatedly re-elected by higher percentages than Bush got, we can't really sell the "liberation" angle there. And Al-Qaeda is certainly not involved in the Chazez government. Any action in Venezuela will require a massive distortion of the truth, but the Bush Administration seems quite willing and able to step up to the plate in that regard. We've spent a lot of money propping up the death-squad government in Colombia, so a proxy war will most likely be in order. We simply don't have the troops for much else, but we can easily make life so miserable for Venezuelans so that they overthrow Chavez, such as we did in Nicaragua. See, that's what makes us the "good guys", so we deserve that Venezuelan oil.

Oh, and there's still the little matter of Afghanistan, where Bush is trying to push the mess off on to NATO. That's how Canada got sucked into Bush's rose-coloured world. The bungles by the Bush Administration, due to its habit of over-optimistically assessing every situation, have basically set us back to the starting point in Afghanistan. Both Canada and Britain are paying a bloody price for a pat on the back from the Decider, while Bush offers little more than "in for a penny, in for a pound" to his allies. It's not that the mission in Afghanistan is not worthwhile, but rather that Bush has completely and horribly messed it up and is abusing our allies in the process. How are we safer with fewer allies, and with the ones that we have left battered and bloodied? Does the world really need a superpower that simultaneously is unrealistically optimistic and that sees only military solutions to every problem? Does it need one that views its allies as expendable pawns to be bankrupted and bled white for domestic political cover? I don't think so.

Basra troops 'will move to Kuwait'

By Thomas Harding in Basra

Last Updated: 3:34am BST 15/09/2007

British troop numbers in Iraq are expected to be halved by December, with about 2,500 soldiers moving to Kuwait, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

A team of officers from Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood has spent the past week in Basra reviewing the number of soldiers needed following the withdrawal of the last battalion from Basra Palace a fortnight ago.

It is expected that they will recommend approximately halving the force of more than 5,000 now based at Basra air station after full control of the province is passed to the Iraqis, probably in November.

The troops leaving Iraq would operate from a new base in neighbouring Kuwait, from which they would escort convoys and train Iraqi forces.

Military chiefs are negotiating with the Kuwaitis and a new barracks, called the Kuwait Support Base, should be operational by the end of the year.

However, the reduction of British troop numbers in Iraq, that will begin with 250 men from the King's Royal Hussars leaving at the end of this month, is expected to cause political problems, with America worried that a key area of Iraq is being abandoned.

The PJHQ group is expected to report before Gordon Brown meets Gen David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, in London next week.

The Prime Minister is expected to thrash out the details of reducing the troop numbers and finding a compromise that will be acceptable to the allies. He will then make a statement to Parliament on the future of Iraq in early October.

Speaking after President George W Bush announced that more than 5,000 US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas, Mr Brown said that decisions on the future size and strength of British forces would depend on "conditions on the ground".

"Like America, Britain will discharge our duties to the Iraqi people, to our allies and to the international community," he said.

"And as President Bush did last night, I repeat that we will meet our responsibilities and honour our obligations."

Mr Brown's spokesman said: "We have to make our decisions based on our assessment of military conditions in the south. The Americans clearly made their decisions based on their assessment of conditions elsewhere in Iraq."

With its huge oil wealth, proximity to Iran and straddling a major supply route, Basra province is a key player for the future of Iraq. Because of this, US troops are likely to be deployed there if it is felt the British force too weak.

Let's look at the other "allies". From the Daily Telegraph:

He [Bush] addressed the "international community" as well as the American people, and thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq", which surprised me somewhat because there are now only 21 nations left on the ground in Iraq, from Albania to the UK, by way of Kazakhstan, El Salvador and the Czech Republic. Apart from the Americans, only two nations have more than 1,000 troops in Iraq (South Korea and us) and seven have fewer than 100 troops who don't do any war-fighting or counter-insurgency.

South Korea never did do any war-fighting. In 2004, a brigade's worth of South Koreans was sent to Kurdistan on a "humanitarian mission": their government insisted, John Reid-style, that they were hoping to perform said mission without a shot being fired. I don't think they have fired a shot yet.

Their mission consisted of major construction works: they built a large defensive base to house their 3,500 men and only ever left it for short, pre-planned hearts and minds jobs in Erbil schools. When the Koreans do leave, there will be a nice, modern, well-built, forward operating base for American troops to continue Operation Enduring Relationship with the Iraqi People.
----

Since Prime Minister Maliki's government cannot even trust its own security forces to guard the Green Zone (now officially called the IZ or International Zone) that contains his own parliament building, he will be relieved that only 4,700 are leaving.

Security inside the zone is controlled by Kurdish peshmergas, who are reckoned to be aloof from the Shia-Sunni sectarian nightmare.

Security at the entry checkpoints is controlled by a private security company, Triple Canopy, that mans them with Peruvian peasants who speak neither Arabic nor English. Very international.