The British leave Basra, handover or retreat?

The beginning of September 2007 saw the British troops that were formally based in the centre of Basra relocate to the airbase outside the city.

The official view from the Ministry of Defence was that the action was one of a number of "successful handovers" and that the troops were to remain on hand in the wings to support Iraq's most senior army officer in Basra, General Mohan al-Fireji, in his attempts to persuade Shia militias to lay down their arms.

British forces had first entered Basra on April 6 2003 and in an attempt to put the locals at ease and in stark contrast to their American colleagues patrolled the streets wearing soft berets and not hard helmets.

Their Northern Ireland experience may have better prepared the British troops over the American GI, but the 'hearts and minds' policy that was initiated from the off appears to have been far from an overwhelming success.

Many critics would argue that if Basra is considered calm today it is only because the religious parties in Basra now control the city. Only while the local militia can protect their own individual interests will the status quo be maintained, but once those interests are threatened the city is ready to burn.

Having been given a poison chalice by the politicians, the British army may have assessed that they are in a no-win situation and that a dignified withdrawal is better than perpetuating a myth that peace in Iraq will eventually prevail.

We ask if the handover is an inevitable step in a war that many would argue was ill-conceived right from the very start? Will the Americans have to sooner or later face reality and follow suit? Have the British cut and run leaving even more death, destruction and hardship for the average Iraqi?

Participate in this weeks open survey The British leave Basra, handover or retreat?