“Unfortunately, in this country, George W. Bush sees the Iraq War and occupation as his political legacy.”
by Ian Mosley
Looks like the last major member of the “coalition of the willing” is no longer quite so willing. The highly respected “http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=782222007” newspaper reports that “New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will remove all British forces from Iraq before the next election under a plan to rebuild support among disillusioned Labour voters. Scotland on Sunday can reveal the Prime Minister elect is working on a withdrawal plan that could see troop numbers slashed from 7,000 to as few as 2,000 within 12 months. If implemented, the strategy would culminate in total withdrawal no later than spring 2010, the date by which Brown must go to the country to seek his own mandate….Senior ministers last night confirmed that an accelerated draw-down of troops could be “comfortably achieved” well within two years, by which time Brown is expected to be preparing for an electoral showdown with David Cameron.”
The http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=782222007 goes on: “Under the blueprint for withdrawal announced by Blair in February, the 7,100 British troops currently in Iraq would be reduced to 5,000 by late summer, with an aspiration to reduce gradually over the following two years. But the military plans sparked by the looming change at the top involve cutting the British presence more rapidly: to 4,000 by late summer and perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 by the year end. The ultimate hope is to draw down to a ‘nominal’ force within 18 months, and a virtually complete exit within two years of Brown coming to power.” Note the use of the term “draw down” rather than “pull out” or “cut and run” which would be more germane to the situation. It is not estimated how many British soldiers will have to die during this “phased draw-down” in order to maintain the pretense of not running away. This will fool no one. The British and the American armies were confronted by determined insurgents who could not be stopped. Anyone who did a little research on Iraq would find out that a British occupation in the 1920s was abandoned because it required a large occupation force, casualties were high and “winning” (or stopping the insurgency) was impossible.
Unfortunately, in this country, George W. Bush sees the Iraq War and occupation as his political legacy. Rather than cut his losses and withdraw as Ronald Reagan did in Lebanon, Bush thinks stubbornness will prevail. Bush is under no pressure at all to leave Iraq since he won’t run for president again. The much-vaunted Democratic Congress has proven to be completely spineless and can’t even seem to pass a non-binding resolution. The British pull-out will be gradual and so can be downplayed by the complicit American media. The Iraq occupation will continue to be a disaster and will almost certainly get worse as rebels gain more experience fighting our military. The truth is that we are losing soldiers for nothing. What little sympathy we had from the Iraqis immediately after overthrowing Saddam was squandered by the Abu Ghraib scandal. We need to admit that the Iraq occupation is a mistake. Regrettably our president is a little man, who is too insecure to admit a mistake. He would rather waste the lives of our soldiers in a futile attempt to prop up his legacy.