Thoughts on the British Pullout

Posted by Joshua White on 02.28.2007

Recently Tony Blair told the world that his troops would be soon going home. Not only am I unconvinced that he has given terrible reasons for leaving, but I think that he's a hypocrite for doing so.


In 2006, referring to England's involvement in the Iraq War, Tony Blair said, "It is our policy to come out of Iraq when the job is done. What is very dangerous is any suggestion that we get out before the job is done."

Them's is some tough words. Until the job is done, the Brits are going to stay in Iraq. Apparently, the job is done. It seems that Iraq is in perfect working order. Democracy has been restored. Peace is finally in the Middle East. The lion has laid down with the lamb, and the oil is flowing like lyrics from an MC's mouth.

Don't go and check Google News. None of the above, save the quote, actually has happened. Iraq is still in the middle of the "quagmire." Unemployment is still extremely high (unless you're willing martyr yourself, but the retirement plan stinks). Bombs are exploding in civilian areas daily. It's clear that the job in Iraq is not done.

But one of the fun things about politics is that you get to define the words you use. Blair said that the British would "come out of Iraq when the job is done" but what he apparently meant was that the British would leave when their specific job, in one specific area of Iraq (that wasn't that difficult to manage anyway) was done. And that is exactly what has happened.

As my followers are the brightest readers at 411, I expect that you all know that recently Prime Minister Tony Blair has informed the world that the UK would be pulling 1,600 troops in near future. Blair claims that the section of Iraq that the UK controlled, Basra, is now in a position to direct its own future. He admits Basra isn't the ideal, but what it will become is up to the Iraqi citizens.

As it has been a while since my last trip to the Basra area of Iraq, I cannot say conclusively how well this section of the Middle East is doing. But let's assume that it is doing better than most other districts in Iraq. Let's assume that it is safe enough for the British troops to leave and allow the Iraqi troops to take over the security detail. Was this what Blair said, in 2006, would happen? Obviously not.

When Blair said that his country's presence would be there until the "job was done", to the rest of the world it sounded like he was in line with the Bush line of thinking. Blair was ridiculed for this. He was called Bush's lap dog. And his country hated him for getting their soldiers involved in Iraq. (Remember, he is the leader of Labor Party, which is the equivalent of our Democratic party.) His legacy was being ruined, his party's good name was been destroyed. Blair saw all of this and didn't think to mention that what he meant was that the UK troops would be pulled out when Basra was in a "pretty secure" section of Iraq. Had he done that, he probably wouldn't be facing all of these difficult consequences. But he didn't. Why? Because what he said and meant is exactly what we understood him to say.

Yet, Blair has changed his mind. Now that Basra is ready to hand over the Iraqis the British can go. Blair explained his plan by saying that "[t]he UK military presence will continue into 2008 for as long as we are wanted and have a job to do. Increasingly our role will be support and training and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly."

While I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, Blair is saying two different things here. In the latter sentence he is explaining what the troops will be doing specifically while they are still in Iraq. In the former, however, he sets up the latter by saying that the Brits will be in Iraq through this year and into 2008. And he puts a condition on their staying. "As long as [they] are wanted and have a job to do" they will stay.

Oh is that so, Mr. Blair? You'll stay as long as you are wanted and have a job to do? Well, on behalf of President Bush and the entire USA, I want your troops to stay. Further, I want them to come help us in Baghdad!! Help us secure Iraq as a whole Help us fight the suicide bombers. You don't want to actually "fight"? Fine. Use the 1,600 soldiers to train others. Your men could be used.

None of this has been metioned.

Blair had to know well before he made his statement of withdrawal that Bush planned on adding more troops. Whether or not you think that is a good idea, I think we can agree that Bush thinks that the job is not done. The difference between Bush and Blair is that Bush says that he doesn't think that the job in Iraq is done so he tries another strategy to win. While Blair claims that their job is done, he hasn't come out and said that the entire Iraqi project is complete. He isn't saying that the USA should leave with Britain (even though the Democrats are trying to make it sound that way). Blaire doesn't think that job in Iraq is done, and yet he is leaving. Leaving and letting the US stay. Well, as I said before there is a job for the Brits to do and they are wanted. For the British to leave now is just a wonderful showing of hypocrisy. "Someone should stay and fight....just not us."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against the war in Iraq in this column. I'm simply asking a country to maintain some amount of consistency. If you think that the war is not worth fighting, then finish up your particular jobs and then leave. That is fine by me. However, if you think that the war is worth fighting, then stay and bloody fight! (That one was for my British followers.)

I'm right aren't I? If I'm not, let me know. And if you think that I'm so wrong that I should be fired, let Jason Easley know.

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.