The British military on Sunday finally handed over security and responsibility for Basra to the officials of the southern province. Iraq’s second largest city and its major oil producing region was the UK’s last bastion in the war-ravaged country.
For the masses whose territory has been under foreign military occupation for four years, the unceremonious British departure is a victory. By the same token, the development marked a major setback for the illegal Anglo-American invasion of 2003.
Basra produces more than 70 percent of Iraq’s oil, and 80 percent of crude exports go through Basra port. This in and of itself bestows greater significance on the city.
Iraqi forces have now officially taken over security affairs of the city from the Brits. An opinion poll last month found that 80 percent of the people in Basra wanted the British army to leave sooner rater than later.
Britain had 4,500 soldiers in Iraq before the pullout at the weekend. However, Iraqis had been in control of Basra’s security for more than a year without British help.
It is pretty clear that the troop withdrawal from Basra cannot be counted as any success for the regime in London. Why? Because the former imperial power’s largest occupation in the past century resulted only in resentment both at home and abroad.
In Iraq, Britain’s not so friendly identity took a slogging as the violence continued to fill Iraqi graves including the thousands of civilians whose only crime was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Brown regime, whose fortunes have been fading faster than envisaged some months ago, is expected to reduce British troop presence in the Arab country to 2,500 by March. Although Britain has severely cut troop levels after joining the US invasion and occupation of the neighboring country, it is far from certain that London wants to put a permanent end to its military presence there.
Political pundits and regional watchers say 10 Downing Street wants to prolong the military presenceÐif necessary only as a symbolic moveÐto be able to continue influencing developments inside Iraq.
What should not be overlooked at this juncture is the fact that the British military withdrawal can and will signal differences between Gordon Brown and the Bush White House over Iraq policy.
It is apparent that London did not decide to get out of Basra of its own accord or for the love of the oppressed people in that city. Still the move is largely seen, if not on surface, as opposition to George Bush’s Iraq war policy that is going only in one direction: down.
In short, the new Labour Party boss aware of the US-UK decay in Iraq had no option but to calm the frustrated and furious Brits demanding an early end to their military role in Iraq.
Brown, a crafty politician, keener on home affairs than controversial foreign policy, before taking comfort in the prime minister’s office in Downing Street declared that he would rewrite the UK’s military role in southern Iraq. As the political barometer was predicting storm for the poor pro-US Tony Blair earlier this year, Brown decided that the time had come to change course.
Now that Britain is reducing its controversial military role in Iraq and letting Iraqis run their own affairs, the elected government in Baghdad and other peace-loving nations will naturally pile up pressure on the White House to follow suit.
Blair’s refusal and then delay to admit the ground realities in Iraq cost him his job. One can only imagine what price George Bush and the Republicans will have to pay for their failures and follies in Iraq?