What is the British army doing in Iraq? Civilian casualties, British role
By Ahmed Abdullah
March 31, 2008
After six days of fierce clashes, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to withdraw from the streets of the southern Iraqi city of Basra and other areas, signalling an end to the fighting that has claimed the lives of more than 320 people across Iraq.
According to AFP, Mahdi Army fighters disappeared from the streets of Basra and Baghdad on Monday.
The Sadr movement in Baghdad also confirmed that Mahdi fighters are now "sitting in their homes."
"The Sadr movement and Jaish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) are committed to the order of Sadr. We are implementing the order of Sadr," said Hamdallah al-Rikabi, spokesman for the cleric's movement in west Baghdad.
Sadr's order came as the Iraqi government agreed not to pursue those involved in the fighting provided they stowed their weapons.
Ordering Mahdi Army fighters to cease the fighting, Sadr distanced himself from those "who carry weapons and target the government, the offices of the government and its parties".
Maliki, himself a Shia, said he hoped Sadr's order would "contribute to the stability of the situation".
Despite Maliki's welcome of Sadr's statement, this is not victory. The clashes weakened the Iraqi government and strengthened Sadr movement. Occupation forces in Iraq definitely do not like this.
Civilian casualties?
To show that its operation was not a complete failure, the Iraqi army said that it had killed at least 120 fighters and wounded around 450.
But doctors estimate that the fighting had killed at least 320 people, raising concerns that the gap between the two figures is accounted for by civilian casualties.
One Basra official told an Arabic satellite channel that after two days of fighting, more than 40 civilians had been killed. A photographer for the AFP news agency said in the aftermath of an air strike, he saw a woman and two children among eight bodies. Local people said more bodies - civilians - were inside four buildings damaged by the strike.
The British military did not confirm nor deny the details of the air strike or the reports of civilian casualties in general.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military said on Monday its troops had killed 41 "criminals" in Baghdad, including 25 who died when a suspected mortar team was bombed.
But as usual, it is hard to tell whether those killed were civilians or fighters.
British role
According to an editorial on the BBC, the fighting that had rocked Basra and Baghdad since last Tuesday raised questions over the role of British forces in Iraq, who are based just outside Basra.
In December, the British army handed security over to Iraqi troops. Back then, the UK's Defence Secretary, Des Browne, said: "It has been a challenging journey, but we are not yet at the end of the road. Our role in Basra is changing to one of overwatch, but our commitment to Iraq is undimmed."
But that committment was tested as the fighting intensified between Iraqi security forces and the Mahdi Army in Basra.
Many analysts are asking why thousands of highly-trained British soldiers watched the conflict from their camp outside the city.
The British army did not send a large ground force to aid Iraqi troops. Only a small number of U.S. and British special forces were on the ground, coordinating air support for Iraqi troops.
But that was not enough. It was clear that the Iraqi army was struggling to contain the situation. Iraq's Defense Minister even admitted the strength of Mahdi Army had been underestimated.
It seems that the British army failed to live up to its obligation towards the Iraqis. In theory at least, Britain's "strategic overwatch" allows UK troops to intervene on the ground if the Iraqis are in trouble. But this did not happen.
Perhaps that "overwatch" for the British has meant literally having to watch amateur video on satellite TV of armed Mahdi fighters celebrating their victory over Iraqi troops in the streets of Basra.
The British army says it didn't intervene because the Iraqis did not need help. The military's spokesman in Basra, Maj Tom Holloway, told the BBC: "This is an Iraqi-planned, led and executed mission. They are standing on their own two feet... It's an indication of the Iraqi government's confidence in their own armed forces that they are able to conduct this operation with the levels of British and Coalition support that we are currently giving them."
"Fighting in an urban environment is not an easy thing to do. It's the hardest form of warfare and taxes command and control and the basics of fighting to the most extreme degree," Major Holloway added.
Why then did Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki initially give the Mahdi Army until this weekend to surrender? It was clear that his position was weak when he later extended that deadline to 8 April.
Many analysts describe the current situation as a stalemate after Sadr pulled his fighters from the streets of Basra and other cities. So it's not a ceasefire, and certainly not a surrender.
Whether a stalemate or a ceasefire, the fighting could easily erupt again and the question would remain unanswered: what is the British army doing in southern Iraq?