Brits Want US More Engaged in the World

Spring Time in America

Basra is being strained with 25 dead over the last few days. That is where the British lectured the US on following their lead by going "softly softly". Well the British did go softly softly and left Basra to the Iraqis.

The Arabs, to a country, hardly help at all in Iraq. They are too busy spending their oil money building cities and buying things to be of much assistance. They have also been getting a little sniffy about the dollar. They seem more disposed to "eau d'Euro".

The Germans are all for Nato troops in Afghanistan as long as they do not have to fight. The legacy of their grandfathers still has them traumatized.

One in ten Ohioans is on some type of public assistance and two of three likely candidates for the US presidency have other ideas about US involvements around the world. Tony Blair had no small part in encouraging the US to be more involved in Iraq. (The famous British Dossier on Iraqi WMD's impressed this army of one.)

Thanks for the advice Mr. Brown, but I think softly softly needs to be re-examined.

___________________

Gordon Brown to tell US to re-engage in world

By Andrew Porter, Political Editor Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:21am GMT 26/03/2008

Gordon Brown is to urge America to re-engage with the world in the manner which it did after the Second World War, saying the world is at a point in history when it needs American "values and leadership".

In a landmark speech next month which will be given on his second official visit to the United States as Prime Minister, Mr Brown will also appeal to the American people saying the US has always provided inspirational leadership at crucial times in world history and this is a point in history when it is needed again.

Gordon Brown's speech will be directed more at the candidates campaigning to succeed President George W Bush

Significantly making the speech in the Kennedy Library in Boston, Mr Brown will evoke the memory of JFK as well as other American leaders he feels have been vital to global peace and prosperity including Presidents Truman and Roosevelt.

While arguing that the challenges of post-1945 are different to today's, he believes that the leadership which President Truman gave in helping Europe should be drawn upon.

Today's global challenges include extremism and climate change, he is expected to argue.

A Downing Street source said: "He feels that this is a time for new US leadership and time to face up to the challenges. Iraq should not be allowed to cloud people's judgement that America can and should be a force for good."

The Prime Minister is to visit the United States in three weeks time for his first lengthy trip to the country as Prime Minister.

His speech will be pro-American, defying promptings from Labour MPs that he should be more of a critic of Washington.

The speech will be likened to Tony Blair's Chicago speech in 1999 which guided his foreign policy and included his first outlining of the "liberal interventionist" doctrine.

That subsequently guided his actions in foreign affairs including, with varying degrees of success, the military action in Kosovo and Iraq.

The speech will be directed more at the potential new US Presidents, Republican John McCain, and the two Democrat challengers Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, rather than the incumbent George Bush.

Mr Brown fears that after the Iraq war America's incoming administration may revert to a less engaged outlook in order to appease voters.

Some of the candidates have also been advocating protectionist trade measures which Europe and Britain oppose.

But the Prime Minister is likely to point out the great post-war institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were all driven by the United States.

It is American values that can shape the new global architecture, Downing Street believes.

Another Number 10 source said: "The Prime Minister has always made clear that he is a strong Atlanticist and he also believes that the problems of the world can only be solved with the United States actively engaged."

In his Chicago speech, Mr Blair talked about humanitarian and just wars. However Mr Brown is expected instead to talk of how global institutions can bring countries together so they can work more effectively than is currently the case.

On the four-day trip, Mr Brown will be keen to establish himself more on the world stage than has been the case since he took over from Mr Blair.

He is not widely known in the States in contrast to his predecessor who was seen in a great light for his support of America after 9/11 and over Iraq.

Brown believes the leadership which President Truman gave in helping Europe rebuild after WWII should be drawn upon

Downing Street confirmed that Mr Brown will visit America from the April 16 to 20.

Mr Brown first visited Washington in July last year, a month after becoming Prime Minister.

In contrast to the matey, "jeans and bomber jacket" style of Mr Blair's meetings with President Bush, Mr Brown adopted a more formal approach.

He wore his trademark blue suit and his only concession to Camp David informality was when he was taken for a spin by the President in a golf cart.

The British Government's decision to withdraw troops from Basra soon after Mr Brown took office reportedly irritated Washington.

Last week Mr McCain visited Downing Street. Mr Brown is determined to appear impartial in the race for the White House despite Labour's strong links with the Democrats.

The Prime Minister believes there should be stronger institutions which can act as an early warning system for financial markets.

The Brits had enough in Basra. Success or failure?

>

...American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad."...

Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay

By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007 Independent

Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.

Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August.

The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.

Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control.

There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces. They are understood to believe it was never the role of occupation troops to intervene in a "turf war" among factions from the same community, all of which have links to the government coalition in Baghdad.

Mr Brown will have to take these wider concerns into account, in reaching a decision that has political as well as military implications. At Camp David he stressed that "we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in support of the Iraqi government and "the explicit will" of the international community. The 15 September report on the progress of the security "surge" by the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will be crucial to British as well as US military plans.

General Petraeus is expected to report mixed results, and to plead for more time for the surge to work. But the White House, under pressure from Republicans facing disaster in the 2008 elections, is likely to announce at least some troop reductions. British commanders, and some US commentators, believe that will enable the Prime Minister to spell out plans for a British withdrawal when MPs return in October, although the process may last well into next year.