The English are going, the English are going…

Yesterday British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans to withdraw 1600 troops from Iraq. The Bush administration tried to put a good face on it, with Vice President Chaney and national security advisor Stephen Hadley saying it shows some areas of Iraq is improving. Others in Washington don’t see it that way, including many Republicans who feel that the timing of this announcement is awkward for them when they are trying to defend the US sending in more troops while the British are reducing their number of troops. Blair was also trying to put a good face on his announcement, saying that the area they occupy in southern Iraq is reading to be turned over to Iraqi forces. But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained “significant,” and said the region was one of only two “not ready for transition” to Iraqi authorities.

If Blair actually believes his forces have done such a great job in Basra and that the Iraq mission is so important, why doesn’t he reemploy his troops to Baghdad? Why don’t the British show our troops how they succeed? In reality the Basra area isn’t as violent as Baghdad and isn’t plagued as much by Sunni/Shiite battles, but it does suffer from battles between Shiite militias that control the area. The British weren’t any more successful in Basra as we are in Baghdad and they know it. The British are leaving because they know it is necessary, something most Americans know but the Bush administration and their allies won’t admit.