Yesterday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the beginning of his troop withdrawal from Iraq, which on the surface seemed like a drastic development for the Bush war strategy. Britain was, of course, the only “coalition” partner with thousands of troops on the ground — and now they’re leaving.
Not at all, said the White House. Blair’s announcement is good news. It’s proof that we’re winning. Dick Cheney said the British troop cutbacks are “an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well.” The pitch was wonderfully simple: if southern Iraq were still dangerous, the British would stay. So, since the British are leaving, we’re necessarily “succeeding.” Who can argue with logic like that?
As it turns out, reality once again interfered with perfectly nice spinning.
Britain’s decision to pull 1,600 troops out of Iraq by spring, touted by U.S. and British leaders as a turning point in Iraqi sovereignty, was widely seen Wednesday as a telling admission that the British military could no longer sustain simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The British military is approaching “operational failure,” former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warned this week.
“Because the British army is in essence fighting a far more intensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, there’s been a realization that there has to be some sort of transfer of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan,” said Clive Jones, a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Leeds, who has closely followed Britain’s Iraq deployment.
“It’s either that, or you risk in some ways losing both,” he said. “It’s the classic case of ‘Let’s declare victory and get out.’ “
Yesterday’s spin from the Bush gang was premised on the notion that southern Iraqi cities such as Basra are shining examples of how well things are going. That’s wrong — the Defense Department’s most recent 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.
Oops.
In fact, USA Today had a disconcerting item that thoroughly undermined the White House happy-face rhetoric.
Britain’s planned reduction in its force in southern Iraq could empower Iran and lead to more bloodshed between rival Shiite Muslim groups, analysts warned Wednesday. […]
Smuggling across the nearby Iranian border, currently patrolled by British troops, could also soar with fewer British soldiers in the area, said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan history professor and expert on Iraq’s Shiites.
Cole said militias often steal oil after it leaves refineries, load it on boats and then sell it on the black market in other Persian Gulf countries. “It’s really dangerous in so many ways,” Cole said of the British withdrawal. “Basra is not under control.”
U.S. commanders may also need to find other ways to escort fuel and supply convoys running between Basra or Kuwait and the rest of Iraq, Cole said. That security has been handled by British troops, he said.
“This idea that the British could leave because the local authorities have things under control is just completely false,” he said.
And some pesky lawmakers on the Hill, including several Republicans, rudely contrasted Bush’s spin with reality.
No matter the military merits, the British move, followed by a similar announcement by Denmark, roiled the political debate in Washington at perhaps the worst moment for the White House. Democrats seized on the news as evidence that Bush’s international coalition is collapsing and that the United States is increasingly alone in a losing cause. Even some Republicans, and, in private, White House aides, agreed that the announcement sent an ill-timed message to the American public.
“What I’m worried about is that the American public will be quite perplexed by the president adding forces while our principal ally is subtracting forces,” said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a longtime war supporter who opposes Bush’s troop increase. “That is the burden we are being left with here.”
The notion that the British pullback actually signals success sounds like bad spin, added Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). “I think it’s Alice in Wonderland looking through the looking glass,” he said.
If I only had a nickel for every time I’ve seen that metaphor connected to the Bush White House’s transparently ridiculous spin.