I anticipated elsewhere that the kneejerk reaction of progressives to the story of British withdrawal in Iraq would be to simply comment that this showed the failure of Bush's and British policies The real value in the message that underlies what is happening I feared would be lost. This is what has happened with the front page story and yet I know that its populist derision of Bush will be easier to acccept and applaud than a more in-depth review of the events. There is a bigger message that we should be highlighting, not just working in the reality created for us by the White House by unthinkingly just seeking to ridicule them in terms created by their agenda and not ours.
The truth is that if we gleefully just denounce what is happening in terms of the British withdrawal in the way that our front page does, we are giving support to those who have said such action would be preciptous. Thus the writer of that diary concludes "The US may be obliged to send troops it cannot spare to maintain some access to this critical city."
We need to smarter than that and not just look to score minor points at the expense of more important aspects of such events.
From time to time I have written commentaries about the underlying nature of British policy in Iraq, since the decision was taken to reduce British troop presence in that country and transfer the main effort to Afghanistan. Juan Cole was kind enough to front page one of these.
Expressed simply, the Coalition forces are in danger of losing the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, despite such successful actions as that at Musa Qala, Helmand in the last few days. The sole answer to this provided by the US and UK is to bolster existing forces in that country. Other European NATO countries have been reluctant to respond. Most of the countries other than the US/UK that have a presence in that country refuse to take a front-line combat role.
The relations between the White House and Downing Street have not been easy - although it would be quite wrong to characterize this as being a major rift. Bushco is fully aware that British forces are stretched to breaking point - both materially and in terms of personnel. The UK papers have been full of retired Chiefs of Staff condemning the poor re-equipping of UK forces. This is strongly rebutted by the Brown
Government but there is a truth in this that goes beyond the normal demand for more money that always comes from the military and the opportunistic Conservative opposition to the government which sees this issue as just another stick with which to beat it around the head.
As a result, the White House has reluctantly agreed to support the UK position in the south of Iraq, to allow greater concentration on Afghanistan.
I have written before about how we Brits are past masters (historically coming from the handover to independence of former colonies) in withdrawing from countries as if in victory and "disguising" that it was a scurrying back home because maintaining a presence was too economically demanding or internal pressures within those countries have been too great.
This week, almost unremarked on our blogs, British Prime Minister Brown was first in Iraq and later in Afghanistan. In part this was to distract attention at home from domestic failures. It was also used as
a way of announcing "mission accomplished" to cover further British withdrawal in the South. So the Union Jack is taken down with drum rolls and bugle calls and the the flag of the inadequate Iraqi Army is run up the flag pole. Salutes are exchanged and another "successful" UK overseas intervention is hailed by the Government, to the consternation of the parliamentary Opposition.
Our stance could be to deride this farce as simply spin to cover up the depletion of UK military forces and the strength of the opposition in and around Basra. After all, it is appropriate to point out the failures in the whole Iraq debacle.
Much more important is that, however cynically undertaken, this withdrawal by British troops shows just how easy it to disengage from the occupation. It can be done in a way that provides sufficient political cover with the electorate back home and future history can be written by those drum rolls and salutes. It is a message that Democrats should take note of and it is one that discomfits George Bush. Withdrawal could happen immediately, now, if he so chose.
Instead, Democrats have to cope with today's headlines in the New York Times. "Bombs Kill 27 in Iraqi Area British Troops Left in April". These awful deaths occurred in the Maysan Province that was handed to Iraqis in April. The GOP response is "see what will happen if we withdraw too early from Iraq" whereas the truth is that this was the consequence of inter-Shiite militia rivalry. It is ugly but it is what self- determination of the fate of their own country will entail. It is not an argument to support our continued presence or for us to heed the New York Times comment that it "highlighted both the volatility of the south and the potential risks of turning over security to Iraqi forces in areas where tensions still run high."
We need to get this sophisticated message out powerfully to counteract the wrong take on all of this by those who favour continued Iraq occupation. No knee-jerk reaction to simply laugh and point the finger at Bush to show how his policy is failing but the more serious message that it is a reaffirmation that withdrawal - even in the cynically disguised British way - is possible now and that the consequences need to be accepted if genuine Iraqi freedom is to be made available to them.