by Ian Mosley

Well, there goes the last significant member of Bush’s “coalition of the willing.” Frankly, the British were the only large contingent. Most other nations contributed 1,500 soldiers or less, and everyone with a brain knows that virtually all of our “allies” sent token forces just to curry favor with the US in the hope of getting foreign aid. Quite a few nations sent just a few dozen soldiers, probably causing more problems with language misunderstandings than they were worth.

The British newspaper The Sun reports: “[Prime minister] Gordon Brown yesterday delivered a stirring festive message to Our Boys in Iraq: ‘Happy Christmas – war is over. The PM was cheered as he praised UK troops and revealed combat operations in Basra will end within two weeks. Iraqi forces will take over as the 4,500-strong British force switches from front-line duties to a training role. By early next year, our contingent in Southern Iraq will be cut to 2,500 – and may be withdrawn completely in March.”

Otherwise known as “cutting and running” or getting one’s troops the hell out of the way before Bush’s surprise attack on Iran inflames all the Shiites living in Iraq and increases the rebel activity by one hundred times. It would appear that unlike his regrettable predecessor and Bush’s obedient poodle, Tony Blair, this latest British PM is not one of the neocons’ lap dogs.

The Sun goes on: “The PM broke the good news in a flying visit to Iraq. He landed at the Army’s base at Basra airport in darkness in an RAF Hercules transporter plane. Minutes later he spoke to Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. He then gave a rousing speech to 300 squaddies after shaking hands with them all.”

Well, all very nice. But tell me, leaving aside the exact definition of “victory” in the Iraqi context, when exactly did the West “win” in Iraq? There are still thousands of rebel insurgents in the field, still fighting. No peace treaty of any kind has been signed, and nothing has been resolved. The British Army is in fact withdrawing under fire in the face of a still armed and active enemy. I believe the word that keeps popping to mind is “retreat.”

The neocons have been boasting that casualties have dropped after their “surge.” It’s true that reported US casualties are only 38 and 37 in the last two months versus 100+ in earlier months. Does anyone really trust the military or Bush regime to tell us the truth though? How easy would it be to lie about casualties for a few months? Another possibility is that some short-term deal has been made by bribing local warlords or mullahs. This would be just like the neocons. There have been a few previous months where casualties dropped, but the casualty rate per month has always climbed back up.

The fact is, that the Brits have finally taken a good long look at what toadying to the neocons for the past six years has brought them. They see what’s coming and they don’t want any part of it. With the impending withdrawal of the Australians, that’s it. America’s last fig-leaf concealing the naked aggression of George W. Bush and the neocons has fallen away. We will soon be just as alone in this occupation as the Soviets were in their illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.