Tethered Targets

Reporting on Informed Comment (see Angels' Links) describes what is happening in Iraq not in terms of the war but the permanent alteration in the status of a sovereign country after assault.

'These giant bases, rising from the smashed birthplace of Western civilization, were not only built on (and sometimes out of bits of) the ancient ruins of that land, but are functionally modern ziggurats. They are the cherished monuments of the Bush administration. Even though its spokespeople have regularly refused to use the word "permanent" in relation to them - in fact, in relation to any U.S. base on the planet - they have been built to long outlast the Bush administration itself. They were, in fact, clearly meant to be key garrisons of a Pax Americana in the Middle East for generations to come. And, not surprisingly, they reek of permanency. They are the unavoidable essence - unless, like most Americans, you don't know they're there - of Bush administration planning in Iraq. Without them, no discussion of Iraq policy ... really makes sense.'

So what sense can be made of Brown's policy in Iraq, announced after meetings with the outgoing US President, with such permanent bases, as big as towns, in mind.

Brown stated: "There is still work to be done and Britain plays, and will continue to play, its part." What part can the United Kingdom play? It certainly plays no part, and has no presence, in these garrisons.

As today's Herald reports: '4100 British soldiers, desperately needed in Afghanistan, are bunkered down behind fortifications at Basra's airport five miles from the city.
Of these, fewer than 300 are currently playing a direct role in training the Iraqi army or giving tactical guidance to their units on the streets.
The vast bulk of the UK force is simply there to protect the perimeter of its own besieged base. Any fewer than 4000, and the security of the installation would be at serious risk.' The British base at Basra is not the billions of dollars of fortified township with independent power, water, and supply routes of the US permanent bases.

The argument that 'the military justification for British soldiers to remain in Iraq ...is that they sit astride the main US supply route on the highway from Kuwait north to Baghdad.', is arrant nonsense; US ziggurat bases are supplied by air. Some of them have more air traffic than Heathrow.

'Beyond that static [and unused] guard role they lack the offensive power to intervene decisively in any internal power struggle and can barely guarantee their own security.
Depressingly, 'despite claims about progress in training Baghdad's new army... of the 197,000 local soldiers qualified by US or British instructors, at least 27,000 have deserted. That figure represents more men than Britain has in all of its infantry battalions combined.'

In the meantime, US Marines have had to intervene in southern Afghanistan because the army 'is so overstretched it cannot scrape up an extra battle group of 650 fighting soldiers.' (Herald Defence Correspondent).

Bush said: "I just want to remind you that [Brown] has left more troops in Iraq than he initially anticipated. Like me, he will be making his decisions based on the conditions on the ground without an artificial timetable based on politics."

The Iraqi insurgents are faced with numbers of permanent, enormous, wholly independent, garrisoned settlements in their country which will be invulnerable to their attacks and will not be evacuated (if current policies are pursued) when the new administration takes over in the United States. The British troops seem to have two functions: to give face to the 'multinational' nature of the invading forces (after all they are the only other nation left apart from the American principals) and effectively, to be a soft target for Iraqi insurgent attack, leading to justification for further oppression and permanent occupation.

Brown and Browne need to explain to Parliament precisely what is their reason for the siting of sorely needed troops at Basra airport.