Our departure from Iraq ends a dismal period in our military history

25 March 2009

/article_images/articledir_6946/3473466/1_listing.jpg

Michael Portillo, in Basra, says that Britain has been humiliated: by committing too few troops, by failing to support the US surge, by showing more interest in spin than reality. If Basra is relatively calm, that has little do with us

The Mahdi army exploited Britain’s lack of grip. When in 2006 Tony Blair decided massively to extend the British operation in Afghanistan, all hope of reinforcing Iraq was gone. British officers were obliged to make deals with the Shia militia. Their men had to seek shelter in Basra Palace, on to which mortar bombs rained. Patrolling outside the base became increasingly dangerous. The British then withdrew further to the airfield, leaving the Baswaris at the mercy of the death squads.

The fact that things are going well today, during Britain’s last months in Iraq, is largely fortuitous. Of course, the British army can take credit for some of the training that has brought the Iraqi forces up to a high standard. Certainly, it is a good thing that the Iraqis themselves have played such a decisive role in improving their country’s security. There is no doubt that British soldiers and officials are now doing a good job advising Iraqi generals and training civil servants.

But none of that quite disguises what happened along the way. The British government was more interested in spin than reality. It made too small a commitment to Iraq and became hooked on promises to withdraw from Basra and to reinforce Afghanistan. While the US surged, we were heading for the exit. We let Baswaris die on our watch. If Brigadier Billal is willing to forget all that, his generosity of spirit rivals Nelson Mandela’s.

Have we learned from our humiliation? The British army has developed its doctrine and understands that not all insurgencies are like Northern Ireland. The government has at last given our forces some proper kit, such as the Mastiffs, 26-ton lorries designed to withstand bombs and keep the men inside alive. We are less arrogant than we used to be about American tactics. Britain recognises that General David Petraeus conducted a masterful strategy that combined aggression with persuasion. He turned Sunni leaders away from al-Qa’eda.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next page

More articles from: Michael Portillo | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Chris

March 26th, 2009 7:39am Report this comment

Britain has been humiliated because it was there at all. We should never have been occupying someone else's country to suit America's colonial ambitions. Our troops have ended up playing the role of the Germans in an old war film.

The British government has no right and no mandate to run Iraq or Afghanistan. The people of those countries did not vote for Gordon Brown. None of them put a cross next to a labour candidate. Nobody in Britain has a right to make their decisions for them.

Richard

March 26th, 2009 12:26pm Report this comment

Most Iraqi civilians were killed by Sunni or Shia terrorists or by other Iraqi militias.
'A senior Iraqi officer laments to me the further error of excluding all officers who had been Baath party members from the army for some time after it was re-established. ‘It was a great misjudgment to think that the army owed allegiance to Saddam,'
What rubbish!! If the UK had used Baath officers we would have been accused of keeping the Nazis in power.

Portilo is just a Tory who cannot acknowledge that the US led invasion might just about turn out be beneficial to Iraq. Indeed, it might turn out to the one New Labour policy that actually worked.

Forlornehope

March 26th, 2009 1:27pm Report this comment

Perhaps one of the lessons is that no western democracy can be ruthless enough to control these countries. British or US troops would never have been allowed to behave like the Iraqi army during the Charge of the Knights. Saddam, like Tito in Yugoslavia, was keeping the lid on all sorts of feuds by sheer brute force. Afghanistan is no different.

Bickers

March 26th, 2009 2:28pm Report this comment

Richard:

Read the article again - Portillo clearly acknowledges that the US strategy is the one that's worked whilst the UK's has at best been half hearted and lacked the commitment needed to win the 'war'

gus

April 2nd, 2009 9:20pm Report this comment

i am a simple man from North Carolina. i want to sincerely thank all of the British troups that stood behind us in Iraq and stand with us in Afghanistan. may your sacrifice help bring us a better and safer world. God Bless the United Kingdon!!!

Nicholas Storey

April 11th, 2009 3:42pm Report this comment

At last it is possible to comment on this topsy-turvy article! I actually recall, as the greatest mark of shame in the Iraq business, the exposure by the Independent newspaper, of the bare-faced lies (including the nicely vague and equivocal legal advice) that Blair and his cronies used to persuade the rather gullible Opposition to back Blair backing Bush in his illegal invasion of Iraq. That the UK has inadequate military might at this period in its history seems axiomatic and any shame in that is the shame of the government rather than the forces themselves - many of whom must wonder to what Great Question Britain is still seeking the answer in it presence in far-flung places which not even any continuing Empire could justify. Moreover, there is a certain shame in the toothless consensual politics of the age which means that nothing much has to be fought hard in debate and doubt before it is (often actually mindlessly) enacted by the goons in Parliament.

Post comment