British to Delay Iraq Troop Withdrawal


brits.jpg

Since October, the British military has reduced its presence in Iraq by 1,000 troops (a fifth its deployed force) and has withdrawn from forward positions in the southern city of Basra to a heavily fortified base at the city’s airport. Nothing says security like camping out next to the airplanes that can whisk you home when things go bad. And after officially transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi army in December, nearly everyone believed that a complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq was imminent. Indeed, many observers, both in and out of government, have been eying the British departure from Basra as a predictor of what the Americans should expect when the day finally comes for them to leave Baghdad—namely the emboldening of organized crime syndicates that have fed on the power vacuum left behind by withdrawing forces and the Iraqi army’s feeble attempts to insert itself as a substitute authority.

The word today is that the British have decided to postpone a larger withdrawal from Iraq. The move stems from concern over last week’s bungled attempt by the Iraqi army to dismantle the various criminal gangs and ethnic militias, including Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, that have taken root both in Baghdad and Basra. The Iraqis battled to a draw (to be generous) before having to call on U.S. and British forces for support. The Brits now appear to see a danger that Basra could fall irretrievably into enemy hands should they depart too hastily.

According to UK Defence Secretary Des Brown, as quoted by the BBC:

Before the events of the last week, the emerging military advice, based on our assessment of current conditions then, was that further reductions might not be possible at the rate envisaged in the October announcement – although it remains our clear direction of travel and our plan.

“In the light of the last week’s events, however, it is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding.

“It is absolutely right that military commanders review plans when conditions on the ground change.


Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Jon.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.