Blair Bush Basra and Afghanistan

One has to wonder if Tony Blair and George Bush are still the best of buddies. At a time when the United States is committing additional troops to Iraq Britain is in the process of standing down.

Until now Blair has shown unwavering support for George Bush and his invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Prime Minister's recent announcement that British forces in Basra would be reduced by several thousand at a time when Bush has ordered an additional 21,500 troops into Baghdad certainly came at an inconvenient time for the America President.

Of course, the White House and the British government put the maximum positive spin on the reduction of troops announcement, citing improvement in the Basra security situation that would allow additional powers and responsibilities to be turned over to the Iraqi Army and police.

Oh really?

A report by the Pentagon only last November deemed that Basra was in an even worse state than Baghdad. The report submitted by the US military to Congress, is entitled Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq. As outlined in the report the security risk in Basra is extremely complicated with vicious infighting among Shia groups and roaming death squads in some cases made up of Iraqi police adding to the volatile mix of violence.

After four years of fighting with disappointing results the War in Iraq is extremely unpopular with the British Public. Many in Britain see Blair as Bush's lap dog on the issue. Blair's own popularity has suffered not only from the long involvement with a war that seems to only get worst but by his close association with President Bush and his policies.

So what is one to make of all of this?

In a nutshell, Tony Blair has only a few more months remaining in office. It is legacy time. In an attempt to salvage something of his legacy Blair must put some distance between himself and Bush.

There is another factor. British forces are increasing their commitment to fighting the war in Afghanistan. British commanders, very aware of the toll five years of warfare have taken on their forces, are being sensible about the deployment of their finite resources. Resources now committed to Iraq will at least in part be deployed in Afghanistan.

What's this? After five years of warfare the focus is moving, at least for our British friends, to back to the place where this messy adventure started? At least, Afghanistan is still considered by most Brits and Americans to be a justified war; not so with Iraq.

However, in Afghanistan the warlords and the Taliban are back in force. This year will likely be a decisive one as with stepped up combat Nato and coalition forces will almost certainly incur heavier casualties. A number of Nato countries are not fully behind the war effort. They committed troops thinking that Afghanistan would be a peace keeping effort. They were wrong.

A significant escalation in the fighting will be political dynamite for their governments. Time is running out for Nato, the coalition forces and the weak Hamid Karzai government.

President Bush take note. Perhaps it's time to stay close to your former best political buddy and follow his lead. Perhaps with an immediate additional commitment of Nato, British, and American troops and renewed reconstruction efforts and monies properly accounted for Afghanistan can still be saved even with the return of the Taliban.

Perhaps.

But with the long history of what eventually happens to occupying forces in that part of the world I wouldn't bet on it. From Alexander the Great to the Former USSR no one has managed to tame the tribes of Afghanistan.

Blair may not save his legacy after all.

David Greene, Contributing Author
Article Discovery Blog

Sphere: Related Content