Bernard Jenkin: We're making headway in Iraq and need to stay there
The only real frustration is that nobody seems to appreciate what is being achieved
Monday, 21 July 2008
Good news from Iraq has been in short supply, but the House of Commons Defence Committee recently returned from Basra considerably cheered. The logic now is that the UK should maintain a substantial force in Basra for some time yet.
This may not be what the Prime Minister wants to hear, but as he returns from Iraq, he should come to the same conclusion. We should plan to stay to build a positive military footprint of our own in part of what will become one of the richest and most powerful countries in the Gulf region. A pre-election rush for the exit will underline how the UK lacks political willpower and is deficient in the necessary military capacity to exploit recent success. Having taken a fair proportion of the effort, including battle casualties, why hand all the upside to the Americans?
We had expected to find, as last year, a military force almost wholly preoccupied with its own protection and incapable of contributing much strategically. Throughout the last 18 months, while General Petraeus changed the US doctrine of operations from conventional warfare to counter insurgency, and began to win consent on the streets in Baghdad and Anbar province, UK forces in the south seemed to be in retreat. We had become locked down in our bases, enduring regular rocket attacks, only able to operate in heavily-armoured convoys, subject to mines and roadside bombs.
In the autumn of last year, we effectively handed Basra city to the Iranian-backed Shia militias. The police were corrupt, the local government was seen as complicit, and the prospects for stability were remote. Worst of all, the casualties we suffered seemed pointless.
On 25 March this year, Prime Minister Maliki ordered his southern security chief, General Mohan, to lead an Iraqi army offensive in Basra to clear out the Shia militias: Operation Charge of the Knights. The local 14th Division under General Mohan faltered at first, the enemy gained confidence, and Mr Maliki ordered in the Iraqi 1st Division from Baghdad as reinforcement.
Whereas British policy initially prevented Military Transition Teams (MiTTs) from deploying on operations with the 14th Division, the US Marines mentoring the 1st Division were embedded with the Iraqi military and appeared on the streets of Basra as participants in the battle, actively advising on planning and tactics as well as providing helicopter lift and air cover.
As well as achieving victory, the Iraqi army has made a quantum leap in self-confidence and respect. But there was another equally dramatic development.
The Shia militias' propaganda and religious rallies had been about ridding Iraq of the foreign invader, so there was nervousness that a visible coalition presence would undermine public support for Iraqi forces. However, instead of behaving like Iraqi patriots, Basrawis saw the militias shooting and killing Iraqi soldiers, whom the Americans were seeking to help and protect. This created sufficient confidence for British forces to deploy back on to the streets of Basra for the first time since October last year.
The Americans and the British are now welcomed as the peacemakers we really are, both by the population and the Iraqi army. This builds on a deep historical respect for the British in Basra, which stretches back to our role there from before the First World War. Far from being beleaguered, our 4,000 troops have now deployed 16 MiTTs to mentor and train the Iraqi security forces all over southern Iraq.
A British acting Brigadier, Col Richard Iron, unusually committed to his operational tour for a year, is mentoring Iraqi 10th division HQ, which commands all the Iraqi security forces in Basra province, under General Mohammed. He now has responsibility for the south.
Similarly, the Royal Navy is overseeing the reformation of the entire Iraqi Navy. This is a transformation. The only real frustration is that nobody back home seems to appreciate what is being achieved.
Our armed forces are clearly planning to stay long-term to continue training the Iraqis. Large sums of taxpayers' money are being invested in hardened accommodation. Basra airport itself is being returned to civilian control, but there is no reason why British armed forces should not be stationed there indefinitely, as in Cyprus.
The Prime Minister would prefer to be out of Iraq as soon as possible, so voters will forget it. Sadly, the defence chiefs seem to share his aim. They are in despair about overstretch and the financial crisis which grips the MoD. It will be ironic if we starve success in Iraq only to reinforce what may turn out to be failure elsewhere. And perhaps the defence chiefs should be arguing publicly for more money, instead of appearing to argue for reducing necessary commitments.
Bernard Jenkin is MP for North Essex and a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

There must be something in our shared DNA that makes so many in the UK and America afraid to actually win a war these days. Thank God our fathers and grandfathers had the grit and determination to beat the Nazi's with a stiff upper lip and a willingness to do whatever it takes to win regardless of time or cost. If Bush were only as articulate as Churchill, the world would understand why everyone -especially Western Europe again - is much safer today. To tuck our tail and run now that the war is effectively over is to make every single death absolutely senseless, the treasure spent useless and would rank as the pinnacle of liberal ignorance. Finish the job and do it the right way so that we dont have to come back and do it again. If finished correctly, history will judge this effort as noble and just with a thriving democracy where none believed it could ever exist.
Posted by Greg | 22.07.08, 00:44 GMT
Jenkin epitomises all that is wrong with the Blair regime manufacturing lies to suit his buddy Bush, Britain and USA have absolutely nothing to offer the Iraqi people, they are only there to steal the oil for big multinational oil companies.
It will be a pleasure to see such useless politicians as Jenkins, that have destroyed our country, thrown out in the next election.
Posted by Cardrew | 21.07.08, 18:18 GMT
When the Germans started the 1939/45 war it was to gain land
and mineral wealth; and cheap labour for their factories.
I and the millions who marched against the Illegal Iraq war dont
see any difference. And if Bernard Jenkins is writing this type of article with your Editors permission, then Englander is in a worst
state than I thought. How can you argue for staying in Iraq and
obtain wealth thro theft and Genocide of the People of Iraq? In a
Democratic country it is not feasible. You are with the Americans
saying to the Iraqui ,"We have saved your country from AL Queda
which wasnt here when we attacked in the first place! You have
Democracy now; you have our protection now to let our Oil People
take your oil.
Posted by Jim | 21.07.08, 17:52 GMT
Can you hear the words "straws" and "grasping"?
Another invertebrate Armchair General throws his hat in the ring in favour of continuing with sucking yankee boots in Iraq.
Still, since he'll doubtless lose his Seat when Nu Labour are routed in the elections, I suppose this modern-day Lord Cardigan is hoping for a consultancy job in the yankee arms industry.
Posted by Neil McGowan | 21.07.08, 14:35 GMT
Bernard Jenkin shows incredible ignorance of the political situation in Iraq. He has swallowed military propaganda whole.
We are backing the wrong side. The conflict is essentially political, between the nationalist parliament and the separatist regime of Maliki and the Kurds, not sectarian as British and US propaganda would have us believe. 80% of the people want foreign troops out now. Shia, Sunni and secular nationalists already have a parliamentary majority, which will increase markedly at the next election. They are against the country splitting up, Iranian influence, al-Qaeda and the Washington-drafted oil law.
The Iranian-trained Badr militia now forms a major part of the Iraqi army, while the nationalist Al-Sadr has decided to use the political process to end the occupation, rather than his Mehdi militia.
Jenkin's idea that British troops would be welcome to stay for decades is fatuous.
Posted by Bill Dixon | 21.07.08, 08:30 GMT
Good to see to see how blind one can really be after a visit to Basra. But still if you're shuttled around in a helicopter surrounded by a large contingent of British troops, you're not going to have much contact with reality.
The Brits are on their way out of Iraq, the Yanks too. Better declare victory before leaving, as Jenkin does.
Posted by Alex | 21.07.08, 08:03 GMT
What will happen if the Americans get their way with the proposed constitution (the one that effectively makes Iraq a US overseas territory)? I suspect we'll be back to square one, and Brown/Cameron, whichever supine right-winger is vice-president at the time, will be bleating the same cliches about 'staying til the job's done' or 'only we can deliver democracy'.
Hang your head in shame Mr. Jenkin.
Posted by Golden Brown | 21.07.08, 04:55 GMT