BRITISH IRAQ PULL-OUT AIDS EXTREMISTS

The mutilated bodies of dozens of women dumped in the Basra area of southern Iraq at the beginning of December confirms that the British withdrawal from the region will be followed by a rise in the brutal enforcement of strict Islamic rule.
The women were murdered for refusing to adhere to strict Islamic dress codes and the grisly nature of the killings was intended to serve as a horrific warning to other women what to expect if they adopted a western style of dress. The deaths highlighted that the Iraq, which President Bush and former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, once declared would be democratic and tolerant, is more likely to follow the strictly religious Iranian model if Shiite militias in Basra have their way.
The British withdrawal from Basra, the southernmost major city in Iraq, close to the Iranian border, began on December 16 and was marked by a show of strength by Iraq’s fledgling military. As a colorful spectacle, it masked a different reality, namely that the Iraqi military is incapable of imposing order in Basra and its four provinces. For five years, beginning in 2003 when Tony Blair sent 45,000 troops to Iraq as part of Operation Telic, the writing has been on the wall that Basra was ungovernable. The moment British troops put their boots on the sands of that part of Iraq it was clear the majority Shiites in the area were opposed to the Occupation. A recent survey showed that as few as 2% of the residents felt the British present was a positive one. If there is such a thing as not losing a war while not winning it, the British have that distinction.
In February, before leaving office Tony Blair promised a phased withdrawal to avoid offending the White House. Now there are 2,500 British personnel in the Basra region and they will remain stationed in barracks until the middle of 2008. The fact is British troops rarely left their barracks in the past year and during that time it was clear Tony Blair’s Iraq policy was a failure. Some observers point to 2006 when Blair ignored the increasing lawlessness in Basra as evidence even then that he had lost his part of the war. The police commander in the area now says he cannot control it with the forces at his disposal. He can only hope that the transfer of power to the Iraqi army will change the tide but that is unlikely for several reasons, the most significant being the fact that the army is riddled with men who are also members of the three militias fighting for control of Basra and its oil wealth.
All of that feeds into a climate in which two violent factors dominate the social landscape – religious extremism and organized crime.
The three groups battling for Basra which is now mostly Shiite, the Sunnis having being forced to flee under the eyes of the British, are the Mahdi army of the fiery cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, the Fadhila militia that has close links to the Iraqi government and the Badr Brigade, a group run by the ISCI- Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The ISCI has the backing of the US and Britain because its leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, often regarded as pro-Iranian, established a dialogue with the US military, beginning last year.
From a US and British perspective, support for one militia is driven by a strategy of divide and conquer in order to marginalize al-Sadr’s Mahdi army and the Fadhila. So far, the Mahdi army has maintained a truce with the ISCI because it has US support but all that could change as the battle for Basra and its provinces intensifies. In that event, the Mahdi army with its deep roots in the slums of Baghdad and Basra could win the day, creating an even bigger headache for US forces and the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Sadr has shown that, at any moment, he can bring tens of thousands of supporters onto the streets of most Iraqi cities as he demonstrated on November 15 when he held a march to honor his late father, the revered Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr. There are conflicting theories about how much al-Sadr is supported by Iran, though it is clear the White House and the Israeli leadership believe he is Iran’s man in Iraq. The Israelis have tried to persuade Washington that Iran plans to help al-Sadr transform his militia into another Hezbollah, the Iranian supported Lebanese group that gave Israel a bloody nose when it invaded Lebanon in 2006. Other observers say al-Sadr is not a leader of the likes of Hezbollah’s Sheik Nasrallah, who is well educated and is regarded as a shrewd political and military tactician. On the other hand, al-Sadr has proven he is a great survivor, who can command a massive following where it matters most – on the streets. Some even suggest he has learned a great deal and could prove his critics wrong. In any event, he wants a strict Islamic order in Iraq, modeled along Iranian lines. His militia is partly responsible for Islamic Sharia courts flourishing in and around Basra. No attempt is being made by the Iraqi authorities to close them down and that does not bode well for the future of the country as a whole.
The British withdrawal from what has become an unpopular war in the minds of the British public leaves Washington with no coalition of the willing in Iraq. In 2008, Poland and Australia will withdraw their forces. In the meantime, the British soldiers leaving Iraq will no doubt find themselves heading for Afghanistan to another war that is not being won or lost. Recent warnings from military figures are that unless more troops are committed to that country any gains made could be lost. The US is not in a position to send additional troops and some members of NATO have shown little stomach for the fight. Next year could determine whether the battle in Afghanistan can be won and whether Iraq will face serious civil strife in places like Basra as the competing Shiite militias position themselves to control large swathes of the country.