Brits Out!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

British forces should be withdrawn and withdrawn rapidly.

The complete lack of UK public support demonstrated for the war in Iraq leaves the British armed forces in an untenable position. It is increasingly vital to the British psyche that the USA be the sole power responsible for Iraq -- they want no part of what the consider to be a wasted and/or immoral effort.

Forcing them to continue fighting under these conditions cannot end well -- for us, for the Brits, or for Iraq.

[Geoffrey S]

An unfortunate side-effect being that it gives US government a scapegoat when the surge fails. Nonetheless, that is a worthless factor when compared to the situation for the troops.

[Lemur]

Who needs the Brits anyway? We have Chuck Norris.

[Tribesman]

This is...disappointing, especially considering our recently military progress in other areas.

They had all the things in their areas that America is trying to achieve at the moment in its areas , they did their mission ,they stood down as the Iraqis stood up , they handed over to the elected officials and security forces when they were able .

Take a good look at it . Its the shape of things to come .

[Xiahou]

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

[Tribesman]

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

What happened was they completed their mission , they got on with the locals , got them set up and handed over , that was the mission wasn't it .
Just because America is only just getting started you cannot blame the British for having finished already .

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

The British are abdicating nothing , they did their job .
If America is years behind schedule with their job then that is Americas fault .

[Xiahou]

What happened was they completed their mission , they got on with the locals , got them set up and handed over , that was the mission wasn't it .
Just because America is only just getting started you cannot blame the British for having finished already .

Mission accomplished, is that it? Basra was never handed over. It's still under British authority.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brigadier General Anthony Hunter-Choat, a security director for Iraq's reconstruction programme, said America had initially backed the British "softly, softly" approach to security in Basra, by which power was devolved to tribal leaders, rather than ruling from the top down.

"The Americans thought the British were highly successful," he said. "Now they've started to think that the people the British used to keep the place going are not the right people to hand Basra over to."

A think-tank report, quoted in the report, said the legacy of British rule in Basra was "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias". A former British defence official, now working in Baghdad, said London's push to withdraw forces had been criticised at the "highest levels" in Washington. America "has been very concerned for some time now about a) the lawless situation in Basra and b) the political and military impact of the British pull back," he said.
link

[Tribesman]

Mission accomplished, is that it? Basra was never handed over. It's still under British authority

Basra is being handed over . Mission accomplished .

BTW Nice story Xiahou , does it escape your notice that what the article decribes is the exact same thing you recently praised when the Americans did it in Anbar province .

[Pannonian]

I remember someone posting, a while back, an article that was critical of the US approach to the insurgency while congratulating the British for their "soft touch", what happened?

This just means that more Americans will be forced to try and pick up the slack once the British abdicate their responsibilities...

The military dimension isn't separate from the political dimension. British tactics succeeded in Northern Ireland because, concurrent to this, their politicians pursued a complementary strategy. Separate one from the other, and you'll have ideas that work against each other. There was a documentary series a while back, which looked back at the different sides in the conflict. One of the generals who commanded during the campaign concluded that nothing his forces actively did significantly contributed to the eventual victory, and that all the important work was done by politicians, as it had to be.

[Odin]

British forces should be withdrawn and withdrawn rapidly.

The complete lack of UK public support demonstrated for the war in Iraq leaves the British armed forces in an untenable position. It is increasingly vital to the British psyche that the USA be the sole power responsible for Iraq -- they want no part of what the consider to be a wasted and/or immoral effort.

Forcing them to continue fighting under these conditions cannot end well -- for us, for the Brits, or for Iraq.

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips....

[Slyspy]

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips....

If only we could vote governments into power on an issue-by-issue basis! Sadly you generally have to accept the least-worst bundle of lies...sorry, manifesto...

Edit:

Meanwhile in fractured, wartorn and tribal land sundered by ethnic and religious differences and occupied by forces far to small for the task everything is going wrong. New warlords rise up as old tensions come to the fore while criminal gangs take advantage of the chaos. Not much of a shock really.

[Odin]

If only we could vote governments into power on an issue-by-issue basis! Sadly you generally have to accept the least-worst bundle of lies...sorry, manifesto...

Oh I get it, believe me it was painful having to choose between Kerry and Bush in 04. But the parlimentary system has a little bit more wiggle room... you do have 3 viable (at least getting more then 10%) parties.

I mean Italy managed it, so did Spain and according to my well informed and opinionated brother in law Martin of Surrey the brits have perfected the notion of representative politics.

I personally am grateful for the British participation in the war, the southern theatre was crucial and they held it brilliantly. Its a dam shame that the war itself was a mistake, and poorly conducted on the U.S. end.

I think its admirable that the UK stuck it out this long, I still havent determined in my own mind if it was to safe its own face for Blairs failed Iraq policy, or the hope that the blood shed would somehow influence US policy on other matters.

I lean toward the latter, but that would mean Blair didnt realize he was dealing with a religous extremist government in Washington. Labour is still in, and arent they adhereing to the same platform of "stay the course" in Iraq under Brown?

[Geoffrey S]

Boy you had me hook line and sinker up until the last sentence. I agree Britian should pull out, so should we as rapidly as possible. However Im confused on the "forcing them" part.

As near I can tell the cats been out of the bag on Iraq and the shotty mission for years. Brits seem to be fully aware of this, yet choose to keep supporting a failed policy.

I mean didn labour/Blair and his Iraq policy win again in 2005 with 40%?

Seems the only ones forcing them to do anything is the british public and thier choice of leader and that leaders policy. Again by 2005 the cat was out of the bag on Iraq, Brits own the choice here in 07, there psyche and untenable position are self created at this point.

By all means pull out now ! See spain/italy for tips....

Heh, you should've seen the other guy. Still, Blair lost a lot of votes that time round.

[Odin]

Heh, you should've seen the other guy. Still, Blair lost a lot of votes that time round.

Which one ? Howard or Kennedy? Dont you have 3 major parties each with over 15% representation?

Thats a far better system then we have, we have been stuck with a 2 party system for a long time. Perot and the reform party looked like they had a real shot at getting some seats in the house/senate but it never shook out sadly.

The other guy(s) may have been horrible but given the opinion polls on Iraq, by 2005 I would have thought the candidate who supported withdraw would have gained more support.

Perhaps the issue isnt as decisive as portrayed here ? I dont know I dont live in Britian I do know that domestic issues are fairly prevelant there and do make up a great amount of the public adgenda.

[InsaneApache]

To try and flesh it out a bit for you. The only political party consistently against the war was/is the liberal democrats. The only people who vote for them eat muesli for brekky and wear sandals in the winter. So no chance there then.

[Odin]

To try and flesh it out a bit for you. The only political party consistently against the war was/is the liberal democrats. The only people who vote for them eat muesli for brekky and wear sandals in the winter. So no chance there then.

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

[Pannonian]

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

FYI, the party currently in government was the party that had the most MPs voting against invading Iraq. More Labour MPs voted against the war than there are LibDem MPs in the Commons. Had the Opposition Tories voted with the Labour rebels, Blair might not have achieved a majority in favour of the war. As it was, 100+ Labour MPs voted against the war, but 150+ Tories voted for it (there are around 60 LibDems).

[Geoffrey S]

Which one ? Howard or Kennedy? Dont you have 3 major parties each with over 15% representation?

Thats a far better system then we have, we have been stuck with a 2 party system for a long time. Perot and the reform party looked like they had a real shot at getting some seats in the house/senate but it never shook out sadly.

The other guy(s) may have been horrible but given the opinion polls on Iraq, by 2005 I would have thought the candidate who supported withdraw would have gained more support.

Perhaps the issue isnt as decisive as portrayed here ? I dont know I dont live in Britian I do know that domestic issues are fairly prevelant there and do make up a great amount of the public adgenda.

InsaneApache summed it up. Whatever the viewpoint on Iraq, the Conservatives simply weren't believeable under Howard (and aren't now under new boy Cameron, but I digress), and the Libdems are just hopeless beyond saviour and have been for ages; there's no way enough people think they could realistically govern the country. Besides, the Conservatives haven't ever really been against the war, just the way it has been handled. I guess that does sound familiar across the pond, doesn't it?

So what you've got is two very similar parties and another one most sane people would never vote for. No, the majority of Britain doesn't like being in Iraq, but until anyone can show that they know how to handle it better it won't significantly damage the Labour party.