Blair to announce withdrawal plan

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq.

 

Mr Blair is set to make a statement about the 7,000 British troops serving in Iraq at the Commons.

 

The BBC's James Landale said 1,500 troops were expected to return home in months, rising to 3,000 by Christmas.

 

Downing Street has not confirmed the reports but Whitehall sources have told the BBC the process could be slowed down if the situation in Iraq worsens.

 

'Robust force'

 

A Downing Street spokesman said: "It is right that the prime minister should update Parliament first."

 

We should have a target for the withdrawal of all British troops by the end of October this year

Sir Menzies Campbell

Should the UK withdraw?

 

However, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe confirmed that President George W Bush had spoken to Mr Blair on Tuesday. Mr Bush recently announced plans to send 21,500 more US troops to Iraq.

 

Mr Johndroe said: "While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis.

 

"The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq."

 

Wednesday's expected statement comes days after Mr Blair said the operation to allow Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in Basra - Operation Sinbad - had been "completed" and "successful".

 

BBC political correspondent James Landale said: "We have been expecting an announcement for some time on this."

 

However, he said reports that all troops will have returned home by the end of 2008 was "not a fair representation of what is true at the moment".

 

'Disastrous signal'

 

Our correspondent said senior Whitehall sources had told him that the pullout was "slightly slower" than they had expected and "if conditions worsen this process could still slow up".

 

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If these reports are true, a reduction in British forces in Iraq is to be welcomed.

 

"But I still believe that our presence exacerbates the security situation and we should have a target for the withdrawal of all British troops by the end of October this year."

 

But Mr Blair has previously said that to "set an arbitrary timetable... that we will pull British troops out in October, come what may... would send the most disastrous signal to the people we are fighting in Iraq". A total of 132 British Armed Forces personnel have died serving in Iraq since March 2003. The funeral of the latest - that of Private Luke Simpson, of the 1st Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment - is due to take place on Wednesday.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6380933.stm

 

Something that strikes me as odd is the fact that only 132 British soldiers have died. That can't be right can it? I thought it was a lot higher, closer to the 3000 or so Americans that have died. Or is there some technicality I'm missing here? I know most of the backlash in the United States had to do with bringing "their" boys home, but there's way more backlash in Britain and always has been yet their death toll is much lower. I guess it must have to do with the WMD falsehood. Can anyone clear this fact up or is that the real number?

 

Regardless, this has to be a blow to Bush. His biggest ally is essentially admitting he was wrong by making a major withdrawal.

[Art Sandusky 0]

This probably goes hand-in-hand with the British seemingly being more difficult to fool about things. I guess America didn't care about the Downing Street Memo because they didn't know where Downing Street was.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You can find exact casualty figures at icasualty.

 

One weird thing that I've read is that a lot of the "coalition of the willing" countries basically just sent symbolic forces. For example, I think I read that the Japanese troops wouldn't even leave bases or get out of their vehicles. I'll see if I can confirm this.

[2GOLD 0]

Kinda odd he's announcing this just as the Prince is about to go to Iraq.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Funny how the Bush administration is trying to play this up as a positive sign of progress.

[NoCalMike 0]

Funny how the Bush administration is trying to play this up as a positive sign of progress.

 

Haha, yeah today MSNBC played a clip of Cheney arguing that Blair pulling out the troops was PROOF that the War was going good.....

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Funny how the Bush administration is trying to play this up as a positive sign of progress.

 

Haha, yeah today MSNBC played a clip of Cheney arguing that Blair pulling out the troops was PROOF that the War was going good.....

 

I guess it's good that our troops have less help now, too?

[daileyxplanet 0]

Kinda odd he's announcing this just as the Prince is about to go to Iraq.

 

That's what I was thinking as SOON as I heard about this...

 

Maybe we can convince one of the Bush girls to enlist so US will pull out as well?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Since the government currently endorses abstinence-only education, pulling out would be our only option with the Bush girls.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Feb. 22, 2007 - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

 

But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

 

from Newsweek

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Git-R-Done!

[justsoyouknow 0]

Dude, if the Iraqis could just watch Team America: World Police, they'd totally understand.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

 

Apparently, now we're providing aid to Lebanon that is being funneled to Sunni extremists, in order to counteract the Shi'ite Hezbollah. The money for this is likely coming out of Iraq.

 

Journalist Seymour Hersh

There has been some violence. So America...without telling Congress, using funds not appropriated, I don't know where, by my sources believe much of the money obviously came from Iraq where there is all kinds of piles of loose money, pools of cash that could be used for covert operations.

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25/s...tra-fundsoh-my/

 

Something like this...

 

 

 

Also, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte recently resigned because of the secrecy & potentially illegality of administration policy in the Middle East. Yes, that John Negroponte had moral qualms about the current approach being taken in the Middle East.

[Guest Oedipus Rex]

MILITAS