Brown's betrayal of Basra

Tiberius

I'm in complete agreement with you on this, Fraser. Brown is utterly irresponsible to walk away from this job, although a majority probably take his somnambulistic view. It's another point to add to the list of Brown's failings you started recently.

Bruce

Thank heavens he wrote a book on Courage. Imagine the size of one he could write on Shame and Cowardice.

Austin Barry

The type of society we're leaving behind is a vignette of the type of society coming to the UK, indeed perhaps is already here in an attenuated form. Time to consolidate the home ground.

Mike

I agree this is simply appalling. Brown's government is under pressure so he has started scrambling to get himself out of a big hole. 42 days detention, a number made up as perhaps acceptable to Labour back benches. New annoucements about the NHS, schools and orwellian sounding support for children's development. Now Brown has pulled the Iraq lever for a quick pullout. To our shame we are cutting and running for short-term political considerations to allow the Brown government some breathing space and to get on the front foot in the new year. We have handed over Basra to brigands, cut-throats and murderers. 171 British service men and womens lives have been lost to achieve this. Under Brown the word or commitment Britain internationally now counts for very little.

Bruce Robertson

"Cutting and running is not the British way." So how would you describe the scramble out of Africa?

louis de charmoy

cutting and running is the only way when you get into a mad mess of this magnitude.

Napoleon

Fraser, this has nothing to do with your post, but I need to say.Your piece in the guardian today is just amazing!I think it's one of the best analysis about how Brown manages his spin operation..

Bryan

Brown has cared little about our armed forces over the past decade - he can always find millions for one of his his IT schemes but a pittance for the Army. We effectively have no government just a series of junior cronies with no experience of the world, busines or the ministries they head. The pathetic blond who announced houses to be built on the flood plains should resign along with her aptly named husband. We are becoming a third world country. Today I came across 6 police cars out to catch motorists but when I last was robbed it took them 13 days to respond and then sent a young cop the size of Ronnie Corbett amd a middle-aged woman to "counsel" me. Needless to say they did nothing to trace my stolen property even though I supplied photographic evidence. for Army.

The Laughing Cavalier

Brown and Blair may never have been willing to meet the financial cost of this exercise but they were more than willing to let other men's sons pay the blood price.

The Laughing Cavalier

Brown and Blair may never have been willing to meet the financial cost of this exercise but they were more than willing to let other men's sons pay the blood price.

Fraser Nelson

Napoleon, many thanks. I'm not sure "manage" is the right word tho:-). Austin, I have to pick you up on your comparison. Things are bad here, but hairdressers are not being executed for un-Islamic activity as they are in "British controlled" Basra. Mike, I agree that the biggest problem with Basra pullout is what this says about our military resolve. We can only win in Afghanistan by persuading villagers we're a stronger horse than the Taleban. They'll look at Iraq and conclude we have what Niall Ferguson called a short attention span: no stomach for a fight. Bruce, I disagree. we left African colonies in far better shape than we found them. Louis, the Bush White House for all its many faults too a different view about what to do in such a mess. They put in extra resources with the troop surge, took a massive gamble and it worked. A benefit of not having to stand for re-election: you can do the right thing, even tho its not popular.

Max Kaye

Why doesn't Brown just come out and say that Iraq is "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" or words to the effect. It's a shameful affair. After overthrowing the vile Saddam - for better or for worse - we are now bit by bit scampering away with our tails between our legs and leaving the population of Basra province to the joys of living under the control of radical Islamists. I fear it will come back to haunt us one day.

TGF UKIP

Fraser, for some while I have been posting on the coming British humiliation in Basra as the US military are obliged to step in to attempt to remedy the mess left left by the British. However, as Political Editor of the Spectator this is a very important post by you and I would like to both comment and take issue as follows. 1)"When it comes to Iraq we know all about the US surge and its effect." Wrong "we" don't know, because by and large the surge and its success haven't been reported in the British media and certainly not by the BBC who routinely and disparagingly have been referring to it as the "so-called surge" and typically only report any bad news as over this weekend when a relatively small number of people were killed by suicide bombers North of Baghdad. 2) Contrary to your assertion, 10,000 troops following the war was never enough. The British had not just Basra, a city/region I have seen described as variously having a 5 and 8 million population, but four Southern Provinces and each they handed over prematurely, nominally to Iraqi Security Forces but effectively to the Shia Militias. 3) The reason for the original and subsequent premature withdrawal of forces was UK political and media pressure in which, disgracefully, the Tories played their full part with the support of most of their own Press supporters. When the long view military history of Iraq from the British perspective comes to be written the historians are going to be very harsh on the roles played by all three of the main political parties and that of most of the media, Tory included, but particularly of the BBC. 4) The British Army's tactics were also misplaced from the start. Basra was never Belfast and remember all that sneering early coverage "Yanks in Baghdad in Bradleys and helmets and our boys in Basra mixing with the population in their berets." Well "our boys" soon learned - or rather their generals did that this was a long way different from N.Ireland. A successful "hearts and minds" exercise a la Malaya takes a long time, a lot of manpower and back up resources and an absent or compliant media, none of which were available to the British Army in Basra. The obverse of "hearts and minds" is the notion that "grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow" and the Shia militias certainly did the ball-grabbing in Basra. 5) Your subsequent comment that the Bush surge was "a benefit of not having to stand for re-elction" was unworthy - Bush has throughout this stood by his convictions and fought to the mat for funding not only the Democrats but many in his own party too.If he had been eligible for re-election it would have made no difference. It didn't for the Missouri Haberdasher nor would it have done for the Texas Cowboy. As a young man Fraser, perhaps you should be more careful about how you write about the Cowboy when you consider how the Haberdasher left office, only to be subsequently lionised. 6) Your concluding assertions are quite, but only partially, correct - "Cutting and running is not the British way. Yet it is hard to conclude that this isn't exactly what our Prime Minister has done here." Exactly so, Fraser, but what about the rest, it's certainly not just Brown. What about your beloved Tories - they not only applauded "cut and run", they demanded it. And what about the media, where were all the articles in The Spectator and elsewhere demanding more resources, more patience and more traditional British grit. The Tories didn't face up over Iraq and one of the many and certainly one of the principal reasons why I will not support or vote for the Cameron Tories is their explicit, but typically mealy-mouthed, support for Labour's continued under-funding of the Armed Forces.

Fraser Nelson

TGF UKIP, to answer your points.. 1) Yes the UK media has been slow to point out the success of the surge but James Forsyth regularly links to the best UK comment to keep CoffeeHouser's abreast of the info. Thanks to James, "we" - all those coming by CoffeeHouse anyway - are up to speed. 2) When it was 10,000 Basra was peaceful. There were no militias. I'm afraid I disagree that there is a troop-per-population ratio: it depends entirely on the circumstances. The Indian civil service had a max strength of 1,000 at peak of empire for about 40m citizens. When Basra got nasty, that's when more troops with hard hats were needed. But this didn’t fit the UK political cycle. 3) You get me wrong: I'm not defending the Tories' changing and often opportunistic position on Iraq. 4) At first, Basra was indeed a model of occupation. Our mistake was to badge up militiamen in a headlong rush to build a police force, and arm a bunch of gangsters who spotted an opportunity for a fundamentalist coup d'etat. The "soft caps" strategy was the right one at first, but it should have come with a more muscular approach to the Sadr and Mahdi menace. We then turned a blind eye to their infiltration. 5) You honestly think Bush would have gone ahead with the surge if he had an eye on re-election? NB the huge change in US public opinion today against the Dec04 election. 6) You've been a CoffeeHouse visitor long enough to know we're not a Cameroon cheerleading website. You’re right: unless the Tories spend more on defence (which they won't) I agree they are in a poor position to criticise. And I challenge you to find an article I’ve written where I’ve been inconsistent! Here’s one from Oct06 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200610/ai_n17191630

Tiberius

The Tories won't spend more on defence? Is that official policy? It doesn't fit with my understanding of Liam Fox's view on funding the Armed Services.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, yes it is official policy and this was confirmed in a very recent PM programme interview by James Arbuthnot, Tory Chairman of the Commons Defence Committee. It was a remarkable interview not only because he lavished praise on Des Browne as a Defence Secretary (a very nice quote for Labour to store away) but he specifically agreed, when it was put to him, that the Tories would not be increasing the defence budget. Most remarkably he went on to say that this was because the public had shown no appetite for increased defence spending and it was for the public to show that defence was a priority for them. So there you have it Tiberius, under your man Cameron political leadership resides in the focus groups. Dontcha just love him?!

Tiberius

TGF: Cameron is "my man" because he is the man who has made the Tory party electable again. And since history shows that a Tory government achieves a better net result for the country over a term in office than a Labour one (particularly this Labour one), the quicker he is PM the better. Now that he has seemingly passed the test the voters set for being electable, attention turns to policy. It is worth bearing in mind that many of Mrs. Thatcher's radical policies were not proposed while in Opposition, and New Labour have not suffered politically from departing from their election manifestos. So to my mind, the door is also open for the Tories to move on to more radical territory once in power, having succeeded in not scaring the horses while still in Opposition. (For the record, I would be very unhappy if the Tories did parallel Labour in breaching the Covenant with the armed forces, but that is the only area I would say I disagree with at present, assuming, as you say, it is official policy).

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, we will for sure return to this again. For now though I've had too many drinks and am too elated having watched Liverpool beat the French 4-0. I will say, though,that I believe Cameron is a wrong 'un and when the Tory Party is afraid of being a conservative party, there's something wrong with the Tory Party.

Tiberius

I'm sure you're right, TGF - this is going to be a recurrent topic. I'm delighted about Liverpool too (but why always do it the hard way?). Hope your head's not too heavy this morning.

Zachary

We have created a Shia dominated greater region of the Islamic Republic of Iran in southern Iraq. Is this what McStalin & Bliar wanted? The Iraqi Giovernment are not in any way shape or form going to be "in charge" of Basra - that will be the home turf of the 3 Islamist militias that operate there. We have surrendered the lives of our troops & the honour & integrity of our countries armed forces creating an oil rich Islamist enclave. If McStalin & Bliar had any idea of the concet of honour, they would take a revolver somewhere quiet & do the decent thing.

Malcolm Dunn

TGF UKIP, you should be aware that both Cameron and Fox promised to restore 3 infantry battalions at the Conservative Party conference. I am not aware that Arbuthnot praised Browne, the official Conservative position is a he's a disaster. The Iraq war has been a disaster from the outset. British troops were never numerous enough to control the area of their responsibility. From the beginning commanders have made deals with unsavoury elements because they had to. Basra may have been relatively peaceful 2003-05 Amarah never was. When the militias turned against the British from the 2005 with Iranian help we did not have a chance. 10,000 troops was not enough nor would 20,000 have been. The Americans have made similar mistakes and have done lots of deals with Sunni insurgents who are anti Al-queda. It suits both sides to stop attacks on each other which has led to a significant drop in the level of violence. Against that the surge has to be regarded as a success. However the Americans ability to further the writ of the Iraqi government has been almost a complete failure. Political progress in the country has also failed. The US could put another 100,000 troops in and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Iraq is unlikely to have a future as a unified state and if either the Kurds try to break away (possible) or the Shia (v.likely) both of which are unacceptable to the Sunnis we shall see how useful 'the surge' will have been. This ill conceived war has been a disaster. I can see why you might have supported it in 2003 Fraser but only a madman would support it now.