London - The timely announcement that British troops will
leave Iraq six years after the US-led invasion and the toppling of
Saddam Hussein brought little Christmas cheers to Britons Wednesday.
While Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be hoping that closing the
chapter of Iraq might add to the publicity surge he is currently
enjoying, the war-fatigued British public and the military are
apprehensive about an increased military involvement in another
conflict: Afghanistan.
By the end of July next year, when the remaining 4,100 British
combat forces are finally due to leave their barracks on the
outskirts of Basra in southern Iraq, their ceremonial exit is likely
to be accompanied by doubts over whether they achieved what they set
out to do.
Since the March 2003 invasion, when Britain sent 46,000 men and
women to invade Iraq alongside the Americans, troop numbers - and the
popularity of the cause - have been in steady decline.
After initially patrolling in 'soft caps' - as opposed to hard
helmets - and priding themselves on talking to local leaders and
playing football with Iraqi boys, British troops made a hasty
overnight exit from their Basra Palace headquarters in September
2007, to the safer outskirts by the airport.
With almost daily roadside bomb attacks on British forces by
insurgents, the rise in casualties had become intolerable. The
troops' reputation was also tainted by abuse and torture allegations.
At home, the reputation of Brown's predecessor Tony Blair, who
stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with George W Bush in the invasion, lay
in tatters.
When Brown took over in June 2007, he made the gradual withdrawal
from Iraq one of his key priorities.
'We leave Iraq a better place,' he said Wednesday, pointing to
democratic and economic progress and the advances made in training
Iraqi police and military forces.
Brown hopes that by bringing the troops home from a conflict that,
ultimately, proved militarily 'unwinnable,' he can enhance his
standing at home, which has recently been boosted by his handling of
the financial and economic crisis.
But the British public, and especially the 178 families who lost
loved ones in Iraq, remain apprehensive about what lies ahead.
An ICM opinion poll, published in mid-November, showed that 68 per
cent of Britons want their troops out of Afghanistan within a year,
and that the anti-war sentiment is especially strong among the
younger generation.
Additionally, the top brass of the armed forces have made clear
that there can be no 'straight transfer' of troops from Iraq to
Afghanistan, due to 'overstretch' - the sheer exhaustion of personnel
and the lack of equipment.
Against the background of 133 military fatalities in Afghanistan
so far and studies which appear to confirm a steady advance of
Taliban forces, Brown is likely to have a battle on his hands in
winning public backing for an expanded role in Afghanistan.
British concerns about public opinion are in direct contrast to
the call by US president-elect Barack Obama for a troop surge in
Afghanistan.
Obama's plan to send an additional 20,000 US troops to Afghanistan
- and possibly some 5,000 to the volatile southern province of
Helmand - have so far met a reserved response in London.
Reluctantly, Brown recently committed a further 2,000 troops - in
addition to the 8,400 already in Helmand. But he has repeatedly urged
other European NATO allies to step up their contingent in what London
calls 'fair burden-sharing.'
For the British military, a 'one-for-one transfer' from Iraq to
Afghanistan is an impossibility, the head of Britain's armed forces,
Air Marshal Jock Stirrup, has publicly warned.
'I am a little nervous when people use the word 'surge' as if this
were some sort of panacea,' said Stirrup. 'It's crucial that we
reduce the operational tempo for our armed forces.'
Your Talkback on this Story