Brits Step Up

By John

Now, more than ever, Britain must stay in Iraq -

Al-Qa’eda is an international criminal organisation that declared war on the West in the 1990s, and is determined to subjugate us. If we cut and run from one crucial battleground, it will be a betrayal of our allies in both America and Iraq and a victory for all Islamist extremism, Shia as well as Sunni. Moqtada al Sadr, the Shiite leader in southern Iraq, was crowing in the Independent only this week that his militia had driven the British out.

The choices are not easy. We are in the midst of a world-wide war and British forces are overstretched and underresourced, fighting as they are in both Basra and Afghanistan. With only 100,000 men and women our armed forces are fewer in number than at any time since the Victorian era. It’s a disgrace and it is the responsibility of both Conservative and Labour governments. The present crisis, however, is the result of the thoughtless cuts imposed over the past decade by the man who is now Prime Minister.

As a result, there are now two issues for the government in Iraq — force protection and effectiveness of mission. Like Donald Rumsfeld, the man British commentators love to hate, we never sent enough troops to Iraq. At first we were pretty condescending to the Americans, insisting that our light touch, learned in Northern Ireland, was far more effective than their alleged heavy-handedness. We were wrong. Basra is not Londonderry. Our ever-lower profile was seen by local militias — and the public — as weakness. As a result the militia grewstronger and stronger, and now Basra is a town of warring gangs. We never committed enough — and we reduced our numbers much too soon. We now have only 5,000 men and women in Basra. That small force must protect itself, must continue training the 10th Iraqi Division (we’ve done that quite well), must help protect the southern end of the Americans’ major supply route from Kuwait to Baghdad, and must remain in charge of Basra’s provincial security until we judge Iraqi forces strong enough to take it over. Because of our mistakes (not the famous American ones) none of that is now easy. The force in Basra must remain for now in support of the Iraqis and must have means to be effective: our responsibility only ends when the Iraqi forces we are training can defend the area against the Iranian-controlled Shia militias and criminal gangs. They still need us for now.

To echo the author in a later passage, "quite right." I was particularly pleased to see a major British periodical recognize that Britain must cease the gutting of her Armed Forces. America needs a strong England, but -more importantly- England needs a strong England.

It's not just Britain, either. Even after 9/11, NATO continued to cut forces as part of an elongated post-Cold War drawdown. I think that it's time to beef up again. Germany can't afford to spare a handful of helicopters to help in Afghanistan, Norway's northern coast is being buzzed by Russian strategic bombers, France, Britain, Holland, Denmark, and Spain are having an awful time with Islamist militants, and the United States has just learned a very important lesson on the benefits of troop strength in Iraq.

Whether or not we'll ever see that type of alliance-wide force increase is questionable though. One of the crappiest things to happen since 9/11 is that somewhere along the road, fighting Islamist terror has been branded as a sort of right-wing, conservative issue. Which means left wingers in NATO's governments are pushing back against the fight based on the simple fact that conservatives support it.

Which kind of sucks, I think.

Hotel Tango: Goldfarb

August 26, 2007 02:09 PM The Long War