I remain convinced that if Blair had refused to join Bush in attacking Iraq, Bush would not have been able to persuade Americans that anyone in the world supported the idea. Americans trust the British more than they trust any other country, a legacy of two world wars. Without British support it would have seemed even lonelier than it does now.
That’s a heavy moral burden for Blair to bear. If he was right, it will reflect well on him. But if he was wrong — as it certainly looks from here that he was — well, it will take a lot of explaining on his part.
Blair’s pull-out plan signals British endgame in Iraq
By Anna Tomforde Feb 21, 2007, 13:51 GMT
London - As mourners gathered for the funeral of 21-year-old Private Luke Simpson in a small town on Yorkshire, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood up Wednesday in parliament in London to launch the ‘draw-down’ of British troops from Iraq.
The British leader, paying tribute to Private Simpson, said the young soldier had died for a ’safer and more secure world.’
Almost exactly four years after the allied invasion of Iraq,
and on the burial of Britain’s 132nd military victim, Blair said he felt ‘a deep sense of responsibility’ for ending the violence.
‘Of course I am devastated by the numbers of people who have died in Iraq. But it’s not a question of being culpable…it’s a question of putting the situation right,’ he argued.
His announcement of a phased withdrawal of troops from the current level of 7,100, to below 5,000 by this summer, was carefully timed.
It was dictated in equal measure by growing military pressure and Blair’s desire to save his legacy, analysts believe.
Blair, who is due to leave office later this year, clearly had his own legacy and the political future of his Labour Party in mind, given the deep unpopularity of the Iraq commitment and the prospect of devastating Labour losses in local elections in May.
‘After being dogged by the debacle in Iraq for four years, today’s statement allows him to leave office conveying the impression - albeit a limited one - that the UK intervention has had some success,’ the Financial Times commented.
Militarily, the writing had been on the wall ever since the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, warned publicly last October that the presence of UK troops in Iraq was ‘exacerbating security problems’ and called for a pull-out ’some time soon.’
A recent opinion poll showed that while at the start of the conflict some 70 per cent of Iraqis welcomed British troops in Basra, the mood had been completely reversed with 95 per cent of Iraqis now opposing the British military presence.
Blair, according to analysts, has seized the first available opportunity to respond to disquiet among the military and widespread popular opposition to the war.
The British leader, who had until two weeks ago rejected a timetable as a ‘disastrous signal’ for those fighting in Iraq, has now come to the conclusion that the security situation on the ground in Basra and the surrounding provinces is sufficently under control for troops to be cut.
The plan is to move British servicemen, who have recently come under increased attack from roadside bombs, out of the centre of Basra to a single headquarter building at the airport from where they would fulfil a ’supporting role.’
Iraqi police and security forces, trained by the British, would take over ‘the main frontline control of security within the city’ while the British would give support where needed and help ‘monitor the border with Iran,’ officials in London have said.
However, as recently as last week, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh warned that Basra might not be ready to take over the running of its own affirs.
It was important to ascertain that a British withdrawal did ‘not undermine security and create a vacuum,’ Saleh warned.
Critics of Blair’s plan in London have expressed similar reservations about a possibly ‘premature’ troop reduction, and Blair himself has stated repeatedly that any cuts remained firmly linked to the ’security situation on the ground.’
Nonetheless, the British move, coming after four years of Blair ’standing shoulder to shoulder’ with US President George W Bush over Iraq, is likely to prompt calls for similar troop withdrawals from smaller coalition nations.
In that sense, it could mark a turning point in the conflict, commentators said.
Splits in the Blair-Bush alliance became evident late last year when the British leader embraced a report by the US Iraq Study Group which recommended a prompt withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while Bush appeared to distance himself from the report, and instead decided to send a further 21,000 troops to Iraq.
One leading expert, welcoming the British move, said that strategy differences between London and Washington had been clear for some time, as it became increasingly difficult for British forces to retain their double commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
‘We can now say to the US we have made a vast and helpful effort for four years,’ said Lord Garden, a member of the Liberal Party and former former Air Marshall.
Britain could now concentrate its efforts on Afghanistan while the Americans would be left to deal with Iraq, he added.
Blair has also made clear that he views Britain’s role in Iraq in the wider context of the need for an ‘overall Middle East strategy.’
By launching a disengagement from Iraq, he will hope to signal to key Middle Eastern governments that their time had come to ’stabilize power’ in the region, analysts said.
However, some warned that Blair’s pull-out plan could backfire. ‘You don’t want any sectarian fighting to arise as our troops withdraw,’ Conservative foreign policy spokesman William Hague said.
A military analyst, who did not want to be named, put it more bluntly: ‘If conditions in Iraq worsen, the withdrawal process could still blow up.’
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur