How the U.S. war coalition is crumbling

Hasan Suroor
The Hindu, 6 March

Britain's decision to pull out troops from Iraq could trigger a domino effect with countries still undecided likely to follow its example.

FOR AMERICA, the stark message from Britain's decision to start pulling out its troops from Iraq is that President George W. Bush's "grand" war coalition has, finally, started to crumble as more and more member countries begin to realise the sheer foolhardiness of what is increasingly looking like a Sisyphean adventure. Any illusions Americans may have had about the state of the coalition have been wrecked by the British move significantly announced by Prime Minister Tony Blair himself in the Commons — a move widely seen as the beginning of the end of Britain's controversial involvement in an illegal invasion.

The announcement came on the day Denmark announced its decision to withdraw its 400-odd troops and several other coalition partners were reported to be reviewing their commitment. As many as 17 countries, cutting across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, have already pulled out. They are: Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Japan, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Portugal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Ukraine, Slovakia, and Tonga. And those still bogged down are looking for an early exit. It is more a question of "when" they get out rather than "if." Poland is committed to bringing home its troops by the end of the year, Romania is expected to decide soon, and South Korea is poised to withdraw half of its troops by April.

But Britain's decision has a significance of its own and could trigger a domino effect with countries still undecided likely to follow its example.

The argument is that when America's most loyal ally decides that enough is enough it sends out a powerful signal to smaller coalition partners that the endgame is nigh. It is not about how many troops Britain has in Iraq (even at full stretch, the British presence was a drop in the ocean compared with the U.S.' 132,000 troops and rising) but whether as America's staunchest ally it is willing to stay the course — hang on there with the Americans until they decide that it is time to go home. And the answer, evident from the recent announcement, is: no.

Mr. Blair sought to spin the decision as evidence that the situation in the British-controlled sector was improving (though in the same statement he also admitted that it was still a "dangerous" place) but the headlines next morning were all about a British "retreat."

Much has been made of Britain's involvement in Iraq but the fact is that, with just 7,000 troops and that too deployed in the relatively quiet southern Iraq, its military importance has been grossly exaggerated. It was the idea of Britain standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with America in defiance of public opinion and at the cost of alienating its European neighbours that meant so much to President George W. Bush at a time when he was facing international isolation. In other words, sending troops to Iraq was essentially an act of political symbolism — a symbol of the strength of Britain's "special relationship" with America. As New Statesman noted last week: "It is worth remembering ... that Blair's main contribution to the U.S. war effort was more political than military. It was he, virtually alone, who gave Bush the veneer of respectability to flout the United Nations. British forces, as Donald Rumsfeld (the then U.S. Defence Secretary) reminded Ministers on the eve of war, were not vital for the invasion. There were, he famously said, `workarounds' if the British had a change of heart."

By the same logic, the planned withdrawal of British troops, or even a sharp reduction, when President Bush is struggling to keep the show going is hugely symbolic. It undermines the notion of special relationship that prompted Mr. Blair to go into Iraq in the first place. For Britain to draw down its troops while Pentagon is sending another 20,000 troops is nothing short of a snub to the Bush White House. No wonder, the Americans are said to be seething and there would be many in Washington muttering: "Et tu Blair?" Despite American attempts to put on a brave face and insistence in London that both sides are still on the "same page" — as the Defence Secretary Des Browne said — it is no secret that the wheels of the Blair-Bush axis are coming off.

America made its unhappiness clear weeks ago when it first emerged that Britain was planning to reduce its troops. The U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, was quick to express his annoyance with what he described as "various reports that Brits want to draw down" their troops.

"We are committed to an increase of the force but Brits obviously are not committed to an increase ... We would like Britain to coordinate for us to have a joint plan. Our preference will be that the longer we stay together the better," he told the BBC.

The fact that the level of troops cut proposed by Mr. Blair is much more modest than had been initially suggested is believed to be the result of U.S. pressure. But what is significant is that it is "happening at all," as one commentator argued. The move is calculated to mark a break with a foreign policy that has seen Britain reduced to playing second fiddle to America. This is the first time in the post-9/11 "Brits-Americans bhai bhai" phase that the Blair government has had the courage to ignore American sensitivities on a key issue.

And it is not only over Iraq that the much-vaunted special relationship is showing cracks. A rift has also surfaced over Iran. Mr. Blair broke his own golden rule of never publicly disagreeing with America when he declared that it would not be right to attack Iran over its controversial nuclear programme even as Americans remained gung-ho insisting that all options, including military intervention, were still on the table.

"I can't think that it would be right to take military action against Iran ... What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue," Mr. Blair said in a BBC interview.

His remarks surprised observers who recalled that a similar comment by Jack Straw, when he was Foreign Secretary, had so angered Washington that it cost him his job; or so it was thought at the time. "It was notable that Mr. Blair's remarks yesterday closely resembled those of Jack Straw last year who said that an attack on Iran was `inconceivable', angering Washington and perhaps contributing to his removal as foreign secretary," noted The Times.

Is it the legacy?

So, why is Mr. Blair suddenly cooing like a dove? Nobody seriously believes that he has had a change of heart. As a satirist noted: "It is the legacy thing, stupid." Mr. Blair's softened tone is seen as a "cynical" ploy to reinvent his image as a peacemaker as he prepares to leave office in a few months time. It is his desperate search for a legacy that, it is argued, has prompted him to pull back British troops from Iraq — something he was not even prepared to contemplate until recently despite warnings from the army top brass that the continuing British presence was "exacerbating" the situation in Basra. The upcoming elections in Scotland where Iraq has played particularly badly and the Labour party is up against a resurgent and anti-war Scottish Nationalist Party are also a factor. He knows that a Labour defeat would be laid on his doors and could intensify the pressure on him to quit sooner than his planned exit in the autumn.

Generally, the mood music in Westminster is changing ahead of the much-awaited change of guard at Downing Street and it is expected that Gordon Brown, Mr. Blair's putative successor, would demonstrably steer Britain away from the current subservient relationship with America.

Although he has been very much a part of the Blair strategy over Iraq, having never uttered a word of dissent, he will have to show that he is "different" from the unpopular Mr. Blair if he wants to win the next election against a revived Tory party under David Cameron's leadership.

And since it is Mr. Blair's slavishly pro-American foreign policy that has caused so much public anger, this is one area where Mr. Brown will have to chart a new course — and that means only one thing: disentangling British foreign policy from America's apron strings.

As for Iraq, the U.S.-led military coalition is as good as dead and the longer the Americans prolong the agony the chances are that they (and Australia?) will be the only ones left to clean up the mess. Obituaries anyone?