How The Iraq War Humiliated The British

The election of Barack Obama will allow the British to finally get out of Iraq. So, was it worth it?

By James Denselow
Wednesday November 12 2008 13.00 GMT
Courtesy Of The Guardian

The Brits have had enough. Seven years after the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the financial crisis, twinned with the inertia of the lame duck President Bush, has created a great sense of war apathy.

Remembrance Sunday was the ideal occasion for the British military and the government to express their thoughts on a future foreign policy, one that sometimes appears to depend more on Washington than Westminster.

Particular concerns are being expressed over the British role in the re-energising "surge" that Barack Obama has promised into Afghanistan. Gordon Brown followed a similar tactic when he took power switching focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, but Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, has urged for a reduction in the "operational tempo". Indeed, while the US military has been significantly overstretched by these two wars, the British military (with a budget of £32.6bn compared to a US budget of over £331bn) is simply unable to maintain any form of "full spectrum dominance" in the two theatres of operations.

With the inauguration date of President-elect Obama on January 20, the British long drawn-out goodbye to Iraq can finally proceed. The main British withdrawal has of course already happened, a September 2007 sneak out of the Basra base to bunkering down at the far more secure airport, but the government claimed that they were still on hand to help Iraqi security forces. However, when Iraqi forces attacked "rouge elements" in Basra in March, the British provided only minimal logistical support – prompting US forces to come to the rescue. The subsequent snubbing of British officials by the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was a direct result of this perceived let down by a British army who had one eye on exiting the country.

The fact that we're hanging around there still today (over 4,100 soldiers) is a testimony to President Bush's desire not to lose the fig leaf of his biggest partner in the entire endeavour. Only now, with Obama preparing to move into the White House, can the British finally leave – a reality that Maliki confirmed in October when he sealed the humiliation, tersely informing the British that "their services were no longer required".

So is this it; the end of the British role in a conflict that has proved so divisive, costly and – certainly for the Iraqis – bloody? Has the sacrifice been worth it?

During the US election a popular video saw a soldier who lost a leg in Iraq challenge Obama's anti-war stance on the basis of finding meaning in the deaths of his friends and his own physical loss. Unlike in Vietnam, the Iraq war has seen the public against the war but for the troops, with nobody doubting their courage but rather the wisdom of their political masters.

The cost has been great. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning economist whose expertise is in high demand today, outlined earlier this year that by 2010 the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will have cost Britain over £20bn. In addition 176 British soldiers have been killed, hundreds more wounded, many with post-traumatic stress disorder. Combat Stress, a charity that assists veterans with mental health issues, is dealing with a 27% increase in GP referrals of veterans – 1,200 new cases a year.

Is the new Iraq better? John Nagl, co-author, with David Petraeus, of the new US counterinsurgency manual, explained to Time magazine that we're back to square one as "Iraq is well on its way to becoming a normal Middle Eastern country, with all the good and the bad that that implies". The bad, despite the improvements of the surge, still outweighs the good; even a 13-year-old girl blowing herself up in Baquba on November 10 barely made the news, such is the poverty of expectations.

And has the bloodbath in Iraq made us any safer at home? Both the 7/7 bombers and the Glasgow airport attackers claimed their actions were motivated by the conflict. Who knows how many other similarly-motivated threats have been stopped before they could properly materialise.

Obama's escalation in Afghanistan may be a card game played for stakes that are simply beyond our capacity. Blair's heavy investment in the military alliance with President Bush over the past six years leaves too little in the coffers for Obama to realistically expect more from a chastened British.