It should be no surprise to anyone that the British are pulling out of Basra. It was widely rumored in recent weeks, in London, in Washington and in Iraq itself. Two weeks ago, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr was busy congratulating his supporters on the imminent withdrawal of British forces from Basra. Questions inevitably will be asked as to what he knew. Was there a deal with him? Is that why he ordered his Mehdi Army to stop attacks on coalition forces? Whatever the answer to that question, it is a departure that has been on the cards since the British started their southern pullout last year and it is one that all Iraqis will welcome and hope to see in it an American departure to follow — soon.
What does raise questions, however, is why British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was so busy insisting — only seven days ago — that he was firmly opposed to setting a timetable for British withdrawal. He surely knew perfectly well that yesterday’s hand-over of the Basra palace complex was imminent and that British troops would hand over complete responsibility for security in the rest of the province in a few weeks’ time. He admitted as much yesterday when he called the move “pre-planned.” His attempts to gloss over its significance will, however, fool no one — “essentially a move from ... a combat role to an overwatch role” (whatever that means) is how he described it. Obviously he is hypersensitive about how it will be viewed in the US. He does not want to be seen as cutting and running, although that is about what it amounts to — but he will probably be widely praised in the British press for his decision. Forty-one British troops have been killed this year. This was the highest number of British casualties since the invasion, and it helped galvanize opposition at home to Britain’s presence in Iraq.
Does the pullout undermine Anglo-American relations? Probably not in the short term. It is unthinkable that Prime Minister Brown did not mention anything to President Bush when the two met at the end of July. The White House has therefore had six weeks to factor British withdrawal into its plans. Not that it will move American troops south. By common consent, there is no need to. Washington too will present this as a job done — although what it really wanted was for the British to redeploy elsewhere in Iraq after quitting Basra. That, however, is not going to happen. Longer term though, this has the making of a profound rupture between the allies. American public opinion will be quick to contrast earlier British claims about how they were better in dealing with insurgents than the Americans and last weekend’s stinging attacks in the UK press by retired British generals on American policy. They may well conclude that Britain is an ineffective and even hypocritical ally. That is precisely what Prime Minister Brown wants to avoid. He is an old-fashioned Atlanticist. He does not want to go down as the man who ended the special relationship.
