SUBMISSION TO THE UK IRAQ COMMISSION

JONATHAN STEELE, Senior Foreign Correspondent, The
Guardian, and veteran of eight assignments in Iraq since
April 2003
British troops no longer provide a necessary service in
Basra and south-eastern Iraq. There is no Sunni insurgency
in the region, and no al Qaeda presence.
Insecurity comes from common criminality and militias
linked to the region's main political parties, all of whom are
represented in the government of Basra. Who, then, is the
enemy which the British might be protecting the people of
Basra from? The answer is the current rulers of Basra, who
were democratically elected in January 2005.
This is the paradox of the British presence. British troops
are not operating against anti-government forces. They are
embroiled in internecine struggles between various
government-linked Shia militias.
Intervening in a domestic row is not a job for foreign
forces.
They should be withdrawn immediately.
The only political purpose the British troops serve is on
behalf of the current British government. It wants to avoid
the appearance, if they are pulled out, that Britain is
abandoning its ally, the United States. A British withdrawal
from Iraq would mean Britain was no longer part of the US led occupation.

A British government could either make a virtue of that
point (a large part of British public opinion would welcome
it) or it could plausibly argue - in the terms outlined above -
that the pull-out is based purely on pragmatic
considerations, i.e. that their work is over and no useful
purpose is served by keeping them in Basra any longer.
THE BRITISH PRESENCE IN BASRA.

Read more►