|
IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN
The prince goes to war
•
And everyone who can is getting out
of it
WITH
the dispatch of Prince Harry, the younger son of the
late Lady Di and the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II,
Premier Tony Blair is applying a dramatic effect
intended to raise the morale of troops in Iraq,
according to the British media.
The
announcement was preceded by a barrage of propaganda
on the withdrawal of 1,600 soldiers from those
deployed in that Arab nation in which some 5,500 are
to remain in place and be reinforced with other
units like this elite one whose ranks include the
prince, third in line to the throne.
It
is feared that his stay in a scenario at a far
remove from the distinguished college where he was
trained, implies much effort and distraction for
experienced soldiers who spend time on the ground
and have to take care of their security.
But
it is not impossible that if they allow him to make
effective contact with the existing reality in that
occupied nation, his criteria on war in general and
this one in particular will radically change. That
would be healthy in many senses.
When
the United Kingdom accompanied Washington in this
invasion it sent in 46,000 soldiers. Within a short
period, it withdrew half of them and since then has
been gradually reducing or refreshing the number of
men, despite the fact that the Basra area, which has
been in their charge almost from the beginning, is
far more peaceful than other parts, including
Baghdad.
But
those withdrawals are not absolute. London is to
spend around 250 million pounds sterling (more than
372 million euros) on sending a further 1,000
soldiers to Afghanistan, joining the 5,000 already
there in the southern region, the location of most
of the Taliban resistance actions and where drug
traffickers are operating. An area that other
governments do not want their forces exposed to, as
increased losses would bring social conflicts to
their countries.
These are aspects that have influenced the refusal
to expand the number of troops and costs that this
would generate when, in early February, the United
States called for an increase in the 35,000 troops
from various nationalities, under pretext of the
still-hypothetical spring offensive to be launched
by Islamic fundamentalists.
Pentagon chief Robert Gates made a dramatic speech
on the honor of NATO, an organization that would be
discredited if it loses the Afghan piece. But it did
not produce the results he hoped for.
That
is a meager harvest from the loyal Blair and various
politicos believe that the U.S. strategy in that
Central Asian country is being reinforced not only
on account of increased actions against foreign
contingents but due to the effect that they are
losing the war in Iraq and seeking to compensate the
effect of that, while trying to obtain guarantees
that the same thing that would not occur on this
other front or that they would lose supremacy. That
is the reason, more than a few specialists, for
moving pieces in terms of Iran.
In
the Iraqi context, since Spain withdrew its
contingents, many others have followed suit. Of the
Latin American nations only El Salvador maintains a
small deployment. The Danish troops leave this
summer. Despite its great affinity with Washington,
Lithuania is taking out almost all its soldiers, and
Poland and South Korea are to do the same before the
end of 2007. The flight is taking place when things
are worse, in every sense. (Elsa Claro)
|
