UK Troop Withdrawal Truth Finally Now Revealed
Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 05:35:13 AM PDT
So, earlier in the week, I tried to combat the misinterpretation surrounding the announcement of UK troop withdrawals from Iraq.
It was a smoke and mirrors game, I suggested. All that was really being committed for withdrawal was fifteen hundred. The remainder were vague "aspirational" suggestions and, as the Ministry of Defence unnnamed source explained: "if conditions worsen, this process could still slow up".
Despite a deliberate silence on the matter from the UK government when questioned about it earlier in the week, I suggested it was just a shuffling of extremely limited troop resources from Iraq to the Afghanistan theatre of war.
Today, it appears that final confirmation is now being given to the view expressed by me that the whole affair was propaganda – and, sadly, very effective propaganda, that many on both the Left and Right have accepted as a true portrayal of what is happening in reality.
Commenting on my diary, a poster asked:
Thanks for your diary
Here's a point from Josh Marshall. Why are these troops coming home rather than being moved into other areas of Iraq?
In the absence of any further information from the Ministry of Defence, I could only speculate in my response:
My suggested explanation.
Firstly, a certain amount of troops will be added to help in Baghdad, particularly specialist forces.
Secondly, a significant number of troops will remain in Iraq to protect the Iran/Iraq border and to oversee the Iraqi forces.
The third explanation, though, is the strongest. This depleted and tired army will return home for a period. It will then be used in rotation for, and to increase the number in, Afghanistan.
If you recall, Bush has already just had to increase US forces in that country. To add UK troops there by taking them out of Iraq, even if it means moving some US forces to the South of Iraq, will remove the need for further US commitment to Afghanistan - at the moment.
It is a zero cost game involving the juggling of overall numbers that has a nice political bonus for a faithful ally.
In some circles it is known as a three card trick.
Just as Josh Marshall was puzzled, the next day the Huffington Post headlined the story:
Pentagon Contradicts WH's Upbeat View Of British Iraq Exit
The Bush administration hastened to present the British decision as an indication that the U.S.-led military operation was succeeding. Vice President Dick Cheney called the reduction "an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the U.S.-led coalition "remains intact" even though the roster of nations contributing troops, excluding the U.S., has fallen to 25 from 35.
But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.
Finally, we learn today, that this juggling of over stretched military resources is indeed what it is all about. Today, Sky News is reporting a Guardian story that on Monday the Ministry of Defence will be announcing the deployment of over thousand extra troops to Afghanistan.
Troop Numbers Set To Rise
Updated: 11:44, Friday February 23, 2007
More than 1,000 extra British troops are to be sent to Afghanistan to combat an expected spring offensive by the Taliban, Sky sources have learned.
Defence Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the deployment on Monday. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said that the report was speculation, adding any changes would be announced to Parliament "in the usual way".
Sky's Defence Analyst Francis Tusa said a rise in British troop numbers would be "no surprise".
He said: "Firstly it was known from when the deployment in Helmand began that the initial force was undermanned.
"Then the risk of a Taliban spring offensive and the problems of getting other NATO nations to join in means that extra troops were absolutely inevitable."
From outside the Ministry of Defence, Sky's Paul Harrison said an additional "several hundred" troops on top of the 800 already announced would match the 1,600 Tony Blair has announced are returning from Iraq.
In effect, he pointed out, the same number of British forces would be on duty abroad.
The real "withdrawal" from Iraq is just a vague promise that in reality is no different than the "when the job is complete" statements of Bush. (I recorded an interesting change in the expected Parliamentary statement that probably came from the Downing Street off-the-record breakfast briefing when it had been suggested that he would be mentioning May 2008 as an "aspirational" date for final withdrawal. Almost certainly, the White House made the telephone very hot and stopped this being part of the statement.)
Thus, by the end of the week, we have had a highly successful piece of propaganda. The sad and discredited Blair has been able to claim British success in Iraq to justify his involvement there, just before the May elections and his own leaving office in the Summer, all for the price of a reshuffling of troops.
In the States, the White House has been able to claim that this is all a sign of success in Iraq whilst disguising the need for even further troop reinforcements to meet the worsening situation in Afghanistan.
As I write this, the Conservative Defence Spokesman, Lliam Fox, is on television accusing Blair of cowardice in not mentioning the Afghanistan increase when announcing the decrease in Iraq. This is not an anti-war stance – the Conservatives support the invasion of Iraq – but purely for political reasons.
It is all words in the air. The story of British withdrawal has taken hold, has been sufficiently accepted to enter the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic. Blair has achieved his aims, Bush has not had had much difficulty in presenting it as an achievement and "the fog of war" continues to divert attention.
The oddity is that we on the left have actually given credence to this whole thing because we wanted to use it for our own propaganda linked to our opposition to the "surge" and our desire to find a non-existent rift between Washington and Downing Street.
Why is it important? I said in my original diary that it was a forewarning of what will happen in the run up to the 2008 elections, showing how a false success can be so easily constructed even in the face of the reality of a disaster.
Of equal importance, however, is that our acceptance at face value of this story, in order to seek a short-term, knee-jerk opportunity to try and gain some perceived spin of our own, has diverted us from the real failure of the Bush administration. It is proof positive of the extent to which the Iraq invasion has resulted in our failure to deal effectively with al Qaeda in the country in which they are based.
Our blogs need to backtrack from their claims that there is a rift between the British and the United States governments, need to backtrack from their claims that we are no longer supporting the Bush war policy and need to backtrack from statements such as "The US is increasingly left without allies willing to shoulder even a sliver of the load". Sadly, the UK is still very much in support – but trying to make good the serious failure that has been left in securing Afghanistan by the disastrous diversion of the adventure in Iraq.
(Cross posted from ePluribus Media)
