Brits bow out of Basra

The withdrawal of 550 British troops from Basra Palace to Basra Air Station, ten miles from the city centre, marks not the end, but the "passing of one phase of this dread conflict into another", said Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian. Of the 45,000 troops involved in the original invasion, there will soon be just 5,000, holed up in one airport. Sadly, this does not mean our troops have restored peace to the region; indeed, the Arab press have been quick to dub it a crushing defeat'.

There's no doubt it is "humiliating", said Michael Seamark in the Daily Mail. Our attempts to bring peace to Iraq's second city have left 168 servicemen and women dead. The withdrawal, four and a half years on, leaves the city largely in the hands of warring Shia militias, with the prospect of "more killings and kidnappings as they battle for power". The police, tasked with ensuring law and order, have been heavily infiltrated by militia members. Lieutenant Colonel Sanders, commanding officer of the withdrawing troops, said that as 90% of attacks were against UK troops, Basra should grow calmer. Others disagreed. Colonel Tim Collins said political failure' in both London and Washington had created a risk of civil war in Iraq and compared the pull-out to the US retreat from Vietnam.

He said there is now a real possibility the Shias will try to form a breakaway nation in the oil-rich south, leading to possible ethnic cleansing and hugely increasing the influence of neighbouring Iran. We shouldn't be too pessimistic, said The Times. Basra has been "unusually quiet" since Monday. Police said there have been no killings or kidnappings, security forces are out in force, and the Iraqi police and Army, who normally steer clear of each other, are manning joint checkpoints.

Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today

Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.

Start your trial

Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Sign up

Leaving the fate of Iraq aside for one moment, the "bungled invasion" has done "lasting damage" to the special relationship' between the US and Britain, said The Independent. The "unseemly blame game" has already begun, with General Sir Mike Jackson and retired Major General Tim Cross saying that the failure of the coalition to engage in reconstruction immediately after the invasion is responsible for most of the horrors that have ensued.

But convenient as it is for the British, as we "scuttle" out of Basra, to claim that had our wise advice been listened to we could have saved the day, the "sad reality" is that the British have not done so brilliantly on our patch either. As things stand, the US claims to be "comfortable" with this week's events, but it is clear that complete withdrawal "would be regarded in Washington as little short of betrayal", said Martin Fletcher in The Times. On Tuesday, it was revealed that the US has drawn up contingency plans to send American troops to Basra in such an eventuality, but it is clearly the last thing that it wants to do.

Of course it is, says Freedland. This "desperately unpopular" war has cost 3,700 soldiers their lives and cost the US £5bn a week. There are signs that Bush is eager to make amends with the American people by promising less of it: on a surprise visit to Iraq this week, he "dropped a pointed hint", saying that greater local cooperation in fighting al-Qaida could mean fewer American forces would be needed. And it could be enough to "pacify a few wobbly Republicans".