Hey GS,

Here's a question: is the British retreat from Basra, which is certainly what it looks like, a serious blow to the British counter-insurgency approach, supposedly perfected over decades in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Aden, Malaysia, and many other theaters? Softly softly, berets instead of helmets, and rapid enlistment and cession of control to local elements seems to have worked no better than much heavier U.S. tactics in Anbar, and indeed, probably worse.
I think its a fair question. No strategy or tactic should be applied on the basis of where or when it worked last until the current conditions have been considered in order to make adjustments.

I think though this is more of a matter of GB's domestic politics interrupting a strategy that requires considerable time as the problems which bred the violence and insurgency are uncovered, addressed and given time to be worked out. I watched a program on PBS last night called the "Anti-Americans" (filmed a couple of years ago) where British, French and Polish citizens were asked to remark on the U.S. At the time of the filming, I got the feeling the British did not see their interests in being part of a coalition in Iraq. Its a difficult thing to articulate why a long term commitment is required to the average citizen of any country. Its also difficult if your military is not quite as large - our Marines are larger then most countries entire military.