March 31, 2008
What the CIA think of British efforts in Basra
Michael Hayden, the CIA director, gave a characteristically candid assessment of Basra on Sunday that is bound to make British ministers and officials wince. The remarks blow a Basra size hole through any pretence that Britain handed over a city that Iraqi authorities were in any position to run.
He said 70 per cent of Basra is “controlled by militia, armed gangs, criminal elements”, adding that it was “a real stew down there”. In his view the reduction in violence — which underpinned Gordon Brown’s justification for the handover — was little more than a temporary stand-off between the armed factions. He finished his answer with this scathing quote: “I don’t think anyone could think that that equilibrium was an acceptable long-term solution.”
It gets worse. Later in the interview with NBC, Mr Hayden says the military campaign in Basra was “inevitable”. “This had to be resolved,” he said. “You just can’t have the second major city in the country…beyond the control of the government.” Ouch.
Mr Hayden is absolutely correct. The British have no business in Basra, or in Iraq for that matter. Supporting the side the Americans are supporting in a civil war is not justifiable in the least. It is their country and the least we can do is to let them sort it out themselves.
The statement “I don’t think anyone could think that that equilibrium was an acceptable long-term solution.” applies equally to the area to the West of Iraq where the Americans are supporting a locally-popular militia against the wishes of the so-called government.
Posted by: Alfred | March 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm | Report this commentYou just can’t have the second major city in the country…beyond the control of the government.”..errr Edinburgh, under the SNP?
Hayden is being a bit economic with the truth as the Government in Bagdad is seen as an American stooge failing to implement the legislation the USA wants- on oil. Moreover there are signs that Sadr faction oppposing US diktat on oil etc may do very well in any upcoming election. Should the Sadr faction do well and achieve power they may ask the US to leave.
Posted by: Damian | March 31st, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Report this commentNow what is a democratic loving country to do then?
Perhaps play the ‘Hamas Gambit’ and not recognise the elected Government defining them ‘Terrorists’…can hear Bush saying it now with total conviction.
Isn’t it funny how all our little comments on blogs and so on are expected to make a difference?
This is democracy in action - meaninless voices moulded by media and rambling down in the noise.
We’re supposed to be working and consuming and sending our children to fight for the folks in charge. That’s our lot.
Posted by: James Molyneux | April 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am | Report this commentWe may be witnessing the slow American realisation that the British aren’t the great warriors of legend; that they went to war in a half-ass fashion, and have fought it that way too. But the reality is this: if you go to war, you go to win. If you don’t want to go to war, then don’t go. Britain was given the opportunity not to participate (something Canada took up).
All else is micing whinging (a very British export).
Posted by: Bob Macdonald | April 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am | Report this comment