British troops withdraw from Basra, and immediately, the violence among competing Shi'ite factions worsens. It's hard to know what to say, other than to recognize an historical tragedy when it unfolds before you.
Actually, Poliblogger had something more to say about this news:
This type of scenario is why I have long harped on the lack of a
functional state in Iraq and why I do not think that the progress in
Anbar, etc. is as impressive as some make it out to be. Basra and its
environs have long been said to be an example of good Iraq. However, if
that region is going to degenerate into internecine fighting amongst
Shiites over power and economic resources, what is going to happen in
Baghdad and the Sunni triangle when troops leave?
Exactly. American and British forces have acted as a sort of tripwire, threatening to visit death on anyone who escalates the violence too much. At the same time, they can't completely prevent armed conflict. Many Iraqis undoubtedly feel that, as long as the Americans stick around, there's some hope that the warring factions will get tired of fighting across and within sectarian boundaries. Unfortunately, the people who cling to these hopes are not the ones with the guns, or their supporters, many of whom are fighting because of the US occupation, not in spite of it.
If the Americans leave, many who have not taken up arms will then do so, in part to defend themselves. To recycle a tired phrase, the Iraqi civil war will get worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, that's a horrible choice Americans face--the long and bloody, versus the short and bloody--in a war that their choices have unleashed.
Comments