Blair to announce Iraq withdrawal plan

[97silverlsc]

Blair to announce Iraq withdrawal plan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq;_ylt=AtimPS7Jj2fYhtREpkNQ6PGs0NUE
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

LONDON - Prime Minister
Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from
Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.
Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as
President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

But Blair said Sunday that Washington had not put pressure on London to maintain its troop numbers. The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Britain currently has about 7,100 soldiers there.

Blair's Downing Street office refused to comment on the BBC report.

Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush said Britain's troop cutbacks were "a sign of success" in Iraq.

"The president is grateful for the support of the British Forces in the past and into the future," U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Washington. "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," Johndroe said. "President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad."

"We want to bring our troops homes as well," Johndroe said. "It's the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That's the goal and always has been."

Blair said last month that he would report to lawmakers on his future strategy in Iraq following the completion of Operation Sinbad, a joint British and Iraqi mission targeting police corruption and militia influence in the southern city of Basra.

On Sunday, Blair told the BBC that the operation was completed.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in January that Operation Sinbad offered the prospect of a "turning point for Iraq, hopefully in the near future."

Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is likely to succeed Blair by September, has said he hoped several thousand British soldiers would be withdrawn by December.

As recently as late last month, Blair rejected opposition calls to withdrawal British troops by October, calling such a plan irresponsible.

"That would send the most disastrous signal to the people that we are fighting in Iraq. It's a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is actually deeply irresponsible," Blair said on Jan. 24 in the House of Commons.

Blair, who has said he will step down as prime minister by September after a decade in power, has seen his foreign-policy record overshadowed by his role as Bush's leading ally in the unpopular war.

Even Blair is abandoning this disaster of a war!

 

[fossten]

So what should we do, Phil? Abandon the Iraqis? <Snip - Portion Deleted - Cool it fossten>

 

[MonsterMark]

Phil is ecstatic that Blair is bowing under pressure to keep the young prince out of the line of fire.

In reality, there is next to no conflict in Basra where the Brits are hanging out. Personally, I think he should have donated those troops to the surge in Baghdad. Sadly the pacifists in Britain will have to learn their lesson with a few well timed terrorist bombings to bring them back to reality.

 

[Joeychgo]

Phil is ecstatic that Blair is bowing under pressure to keep the young prince out of the line of fire.

In reality, there is next to no conflict in Basra where the Brits are hanging out. Personally, I think he should have donated those troops to the surge in Baghdad. Sadly the pacifists in Britain will have to learn their lesson with a few well timed terrorist bombings to bring them back to reality.

Firstly, those 'pacifists' in Britain stuck with GW from day one. Im by no means ecstatic either, but lets not put down the Brits. They have been our loyal ally and deserve better. Their blood has been spilled in the name of this war as well.

What should we do now? I dont know Fossten. I really dont know what we can do / are willing to do to win this. I wish I had the answer. The only answer I have is to FLOOD the region with troops, but the American people arent going to stand for another 150,000 troop deployment.

Before you blame THAT on the democrats, its time you right wingers take a little responsibility and start blaming the guy who really caused all this - Our President.

That comment I am sure will draw fire, so let me fire the first shot.

We went to war with Iraq to depose a Dictator who was preparing to launch a WMD attack against the US... No WMD was found after the invasion.

We went to war with Iraq to depose a Dictator who was harboring Terrorists. No such evidence has really proven true except that there are many many more terrorists in Iraq now then before the war.

Many mistakes were made in the prosecution of this war, which has cumulated into the position we have now, Near Chaos. Over 3 years I believe since the "Mission Accomplished" speech. You know the one, where your beloved God, George Bush flew onto an Aircraft Carrier to tell the nation how great he had done and show us how impressive he was in a flight suit?

I could go on, but there is no point. Fact is, all the above means next to nothing today. We are in this position and crying about how we got here helps nothing.

Let me pose this question. If in a year, things are substantially the same as they are today, what should our new President do (regardless of party)? How about 2 years? Or do we just keep going until we win, regardless of time and cost?

Is there a time we should pull out? If so - when?

 

[MonsterMark]

Winners never quit and quitters never win...
- Vince Lombardi

 

[rmac694203]

Yes but young Americans don't die in football...

 

[fossten]

Yes but young Americans don't die in football...

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. More Americans died on 9/11 than have died in Iraq. More young Americans die every year from car wrecks and violent crime in any large U.S. state than die in Iraq. More Americans die every year in the U.S. from pharmacies filling out the wrong prescriptions than die in Iraq.

 

[fossten]

Firstly, those 'pacifists' in Britain stuck with GW from day one. Im by no means ecstatic either, but lets not put down the Brits. They have been our loyal ally and deserve better. Their blood has been spilled in the name of this war as well.

What should we do now? I dont know Fossten. I really dont know what we can do / are willing to do to win this. I wish I had the answer. The only answer I have is to FLOOD the region with troops, but the American people arent going to stand for another 150,000 troop deployment.

Before you blame THAT on the democrats, its time you right wingers take a little responsibility and start blaming the guy who really caused all this - Our President.

That comment I am sure will draw fire, so let me fire the first shot.

We went to war with Iraq to depose a Dictator who was preparing to launch a WMD attack against the US... No WMD was found after the invasion.

We went to war with Iraq to depose a Dictator who was harboring Terrorists. No such evidence has really proven true except that there are many many more terrorists in Iraq now then before the war.

Many mistakes were made in the prosecution of this war, which has cumulated into the position we have now, Near Chaos. Over 3 years I believe since the "Mission Accomplished" speech. You know the one, where your beloved God, George Bush flew onto an Aircraft Carrier to tell the nation how great he had done and show us how impressive he was in a flight suit?

I could go on, but there is no point. Fact is, all the above means next to nothing today. We are in this position and crying about how we got here helps nothing.

Let me pose this question. If in a year, things are substantially the same as they are today, what should our new President do (regardless of party)? How about 2 years? Or do we just keep going until we win, regardless of time and cost?

Is there a time we should pull out? If so - when?

Gee, should I even answer you since you are censoring my posts? And what was so offensive to any particular person on this forum that you see fit to bleep it out? I used no curse words, I didn't attack any one person here. I didn't use any stronger language to describe the Democrats than anyone else here has used to describe Bush. In fact, what I said was less offensive than your avatar. I simply stated my opinion, you STALINIST.

To answer your question, though:

You can't blame this on Bush alone. The Democrats nearly all supported and even demanded that we go into Iraq. The rest of the world thought Saddam had WMDs, we even witnessed him using WMDs.

Your premise that the war is not going well is flawed, considering that 99% of Iraq is peaceful and under control. There are around 500 Humvee sorties a day in Iraq, and less than one vehicle a day is hit with an IED. Any time the enemy has actually engaged our forces we have wiped them out convincingly. The fact that the media reports every single blister on the ass of any soldier stationed over there just shows their agenda, which is to exhaust the American people by bombarding them with as much inflated bad news as possible. They ignore the schools and hospitals and economy being rebuilt, and they focus on the onesies and twosies of military deaths or bombings. I can see that you've fallen for this trick as well.

Things will not be the same a year from now. We're the USA, we don't lose wars unless we cut and run. The only wars we've ever lost happened because we gave up rather than finish the job. If they are the same a year from now, Bush should hold firm and not abandon the Iraqis to annihilation like the pacifist traitorous Democrats did in Vietnam.

 

[Frogman]

Your premise that the war is not going well is flawed, considering that 99% of Iraq is peaceful and under control. There are around 500 Humvee sorties a day in Iraq, and less than one vehicle a day is hit with an IED. Any time the enemy has actually engaged our forces we have wiped them out convincingly. The fact that the media reports every single blister on the ass of any soldier stationed over there just shows their agenda, which is to exhaust the American people by bombarding them with as much inflated bad news as possible. They ignore the schools and hospitals and economy being rebuilt, and they focus on the onesies and twosies of military deaths or bombings. I can see that you've fallen for this trick as well.

Statements like that just make my blood boil, so please bear with me.


Blow it out your ass, Fossten. Have you been in a hot zone there? No? Gee... What a surprise. I have been in hot zones there. I go there on a regular basis as a civilian contractor.

99% peaceful? In which dimension is this, because it sure as hell isn't in THIS dimension. If the Iraqis aren't shooting at coalition forces, they are shooting at each other. 99% peaceful my ass.

It's easy to sit in a chair and blast everyone with your internet gathered "facts".

It's not so easy to see the carnage that happens there daily. It's not so easy to see a ton of incidents that never get reported by the western (or any for that matter) media.

It's not so easy to have to shoot at a 15 year old because he's got an AK pointed at your face with every intent on doing away with you because some American or Coalition soldier shot his father or a family member - whether he deserved it or not, that's not for me to judge-.

It's not so easy to be in a helicopter and wonder where the next RPG that hits your bird will come from.

It's not so easy to walk down the street armed to the teeth and wonder which parked car will be the next to go off in a fire ball.

Sorry Fossten, but until you've spent time there, you have no room to talk about 99% peaceful. Actually, you wouldn't call it 99% peaceful had you spent any real time there.


When will you people, Democrats, Republicans, Little Green Men Party, whatever, understand that regardless of how we got involved in this mess, we as a nation have to stick together? All this bickering, and putting the blame on each party for doing and/or not doing something. Who the fork cares? If we can't stick together here, whats the whole god dammned point?

I don't agree with us being there, but God damn it, we're there now, so let's deal with it. People are dying in Iraq every day. Americans, Coalition, Iraqis, Afghanis, whatever. People die in this country every day too you know. So quit with how many soldiers died in Iraq. Soldiers die in wars. It's that simple. At the same time, quit with trying to make everything in Iraq seem so rosy.

Sorry for the rant, but it really annoys me when some Chairborne Ranger seems to know how things are in a warzone they've never set foot in.

 

[fossten]

Statements like that just make my blood boil, so please bear with me.


Blow it out your ass, Fossten. Have you been in a hot zone there? No? Gee... What a surprise. I have been in hot zones there. I go there on a regular basis as a civilian contractor.

99% peaceful? In which dimension is this, because it sure as hell isn't in THIS dimension. If the Iraqis aren't shooting at coalition forces, they are shooting at each other. 99% peaceful my ass.

It's easy to sit in a chair and blast everyone with your internet gathered "facts".

It's not so easy to see the carnage that happens there daily. It's not so easy to see a ton of incidents that never get reported by the western (or any for that matter) media.

It's not so easy to have to shoot at a 15 year old because he's got an AK pointed at your face with every intent on doing away with you because some American or Coalition soldier shot his father or a family member - whether he deserved it or not, that's not for me to judge-.

It's not so easy to be in a helicopter and wonder where the next RPG that hits your bird will come from.

It's not so easy to walk down the street armed to the teeth and wonder which parked car will be the next to go off in a fire ball.

Sorry Fossten, but until you've spent time there, you have no room to talk about 99% peaceful. Actually, you wouldn't call it 99% peaceful had you spent any real time there.


When will you people, Democrats, Republicans, Little Green Men Party, whatever, understand that regardless of how we got involved in this mess, we as a nation have to stick together? All this bickering, and putting the blame on each party for doing and/or not doing something. Who the fork cares? If we can't stick together here, whats the whole god dammned point?

I don't agree with us being there, but God damn it, we're there now, so let's deal with it. People are dying in Iraq every day. Americans, Coalition, Iraqis, Afghanis, whatever. People die in this country every day too you know. So quit with how many soldiers died in Iraq. Soldiers die in wars. It's that simple. At the same time, quit with trying to make everything in Iraq seem so rosy.

Sorry for the rant, but it really annoys me when some Chairborne Ranger seems to know how things are in a warzone they've never set foot in.

Don't try to discredit me because I haven't been there. That's bullcrap and you know it. That's the oldest liberal trick in the book. I know enough to make comments, and bullying and trying to squelch my freedom of speech isn't going to lend you any credibility. That's like me telling you that you can't comment on abortion because you've never been a woman.

By the way, in what capacity did you serve in Iraq?

 

[fossten]

The Reason the Brits are Pulling Out

ABC Labels UK Withdrawal 'Bad News' Before Cheney Calls It Sign of Progress
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 21, 2007 - 10:40.

Nothing for the MSM like dumping a little pre-emptive cold water on the Bush administration and the situation in Iraq. Introducing his interview with Vice-President Cheney this morning, ABC correspondent claimed:

"It would appear that the British announcement [of a partial withdrawal of forces from Iraq] is bad news for the Bush administration, but in the first official reaction from the United States, Vice-President Cheney told ABC News that he thinks that the announcement is actually good news -- a sign of progress in Iraq."

ABC then ran the clip of VP Cheney making his case: "I look at it, and what I see is an affirmation that in parts of Iraq things are going pretty well. I talked to a friend who just the other day had driven from Baghdad down to Basra [in the Shia-dominated south], seven hours. Found the situation dramatically improved from the way it was a year or so ago. Sort of validated the British view that they have made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore afford to reduce their force levels."

Cheney's statement is consistent with the explanation offered by British PM Tony Blair:

"The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad. It is still a difficult and sometimes dangerous place, but many extremists have been arrested or left the city. The reported levels of murder and kidnapping are significantly down."

So why did Karl find it necessary to contradict Mr. Cheney's view in advance, rather than let viewers assess the Vice President's statement for themselves? You don't suppose ABC could have a vested interest in portraying events in Iraq in negative terms, do you?

Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net

 

[Frogman]

Fossten, get over yourself.

I'm not trying to discredit you. Frankly, I don't even care about you. You have your cooky views on politics, and as much as I may not agree with most of your points (though, granted, I am 100% with you on the whole global warming farce), I will let you speak your mind. I stay out of your discussins as much as possible, but there is some stuff you say that makes me (and I'm sure others) think "WTF is he thinking?".

I really don't care what you consider my "credibility" to be. I'm not out trying to prove a point, unlike you. I'm just telling you what I've experienced. Most people who see what I've seen don't need me to prove any points to them. They already know.


As far as what I do overseas... Well, frankly that's none of your business. Really. It's a job, it pays damed well, and I do it 3-4 months out of the year, total.

What we should be concerning ourselves with is stuff like the Amero, and the transnational highway linking Mexico with Canada... And such silly things like the EU like union some of our politicians are trying to accomplish by uniting Mexico, america and Canada under one union, with open borders.

We should concern ourselves with stuff like our US Border patrol agents who are jailed for doing their jobs. Stuff like giving illegal mexican drug dealers immunity to testify against these agents. Stuff like Illegal mexicans suing our government for being stopped or sent back.

Stuff like US Citizens who own property on (or near) the Mexican border who can't even defend their property from illegals crossing over it.

We've got a war in this country already, people. It isn't fought with bullets, or conventional weapons. But we are being invaded every day.

Lets not talk aobut the national guard being ORDERED to and then later commended for retreating under fire from armed mexican individuals.

Don't take my word for it, I'm sure you can find this stuff on the internet. Just because it's not in the mainstream media, it don't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[fossten]

Fossten, get over yourself.

I'm not trying to discredit you. Frankly, I don't even care about you. You have your cooky views on politics, and as much as I may not agree with most of your points (though, granted, I am 100% with you on the whole global warming farce), I will let you speak your mind. I stay out of your discussins as much as possible, but there is some stuff you say that makes me (and I'm sure others) think "WTF is he thinking?".

I really don't care what you consider my "credibility" to be. I'm not out trying to prove a point, unlike you. I'm just telling you what I've experienced. Most people who see what I've seen don't need me to prove any points to them. They already know.


As far as what I do overseas... Well, frankly that's none of your business. Really. It's a job, it pays damed well, and I do it 3-4 months out of the year, total.

What we should be concerning ourselves with is stuff like the Amero, and the transnational highway linking Mexico with Canada... And such silly things like the EU like union some of our politicians are trying to accomplish by uniting Mexico, america and Canada under one union, with open borders.

We should concern ourselves with stuff like our US Border patrol agents who are jailed for doing their jobs. Stuff like giving illegal mexican drug dealers immunity to testify against these agents. Stuff like Illegal mexicans suing our government for being stopped or sent back.

Stuff like US Citizens who own property on (or near) the Mexican border who can't even defend their property from illegals crossing over it.

We've got a war in this country already, people. It isn't fought with bullets, or conventional weapons. But we are being invaded every day.

Lets not talk aobut the national guard being ORDERED to and then later commended for retreating under fire from armed mexican individuals.

Don't take my word for it, I'm sure you can find this stuff on the internet. Just because it's not in the mainstream media, it don't mean it doesn't happen.

Nobody can be in all places at once. Therefore, nobody is qualified to comment on the status of things in Iraq, right? Bullcrap. You give me anecdotal info, but it's based on your personal experience. The fact is that Basra is a very safe area in Iraq right now, and that's why the Brits are pulling out of it, because it's being turned over to the Iraqis. I have this on good authority from a Master Sgt. in the Army who was over there recently.

Okay, you are accusing me of trying to minimize the danger in Iraq. I submit that I am closer to reality than those trying to maximize the danger in Iraq. You can't even compare what's happening in Iraq to what happened in Iwo Jima or the Battle of the Bulge. We had resistance while occupying Germany after WWII, also. The difference was that the bleeding heart media wasn't around bashing our troops every chance they got, and we didn't have to operate like scared kittens around the bad guys. We strung up some of the resistance terrorists and they got the message and gave up. As long as our troops have to operate with one hand tied behind their backs and the media and politicians bashing them left and right (But I support the troops!), things in Iraq will not get better. We have to be as tough as or tougher than the enemy we face.

As far as your border patrol issues, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would also add the assault on our gun rights by the Federal Government as another war that is being fought as we speak.

 

[TheDude]

Let me pose this question. If in a year, things are substantially the same as they are today, what should our new President do (regardless of party)? How about 2 years? Or do we just keep going until we win, regardless of time and cost?

Is there a time we should pull out? If so - when?

I don't think anybody actually answered your question... Personally, I do not see how we can unequivocally "win the war". If we keep troops stationed in Iraq permanently, there will be fighting/death because of that on a constant basis. If we completely pull out, there will be a civil war and ultimately Iran will take over. If we flatten Iraq to the ground and leave (criminal acts aside), Iran will still take over with what remains.

Obviously the Bush Cabinets plan that Iraq will become a stable Democracy and ally to America isn't panning out and it will not happen anytime in the near future regardless of who's sitting in the White House. I think this is where Bush ultimately failed, thinking the Iraqis were ready to turn and turn on the timetable he set out for them.

 

[Frogman]

Nobody can be in all places at once. Therefore, nobody is qualified to comment on the status of things in Iraq, right? Bullcrap. You give me anecdotal info, but it's based on your personal experience. The fact is that Basra is a very safe area in Iraq right now, and that's why the Brits are pulling out of it, because it's being turned over to the Iraqis. I have this on good authority from a Master Sgt. in the Army who was over there recently.

If you say so, Fossten. Meanwhile, I'll still be armed to the teeth when I'm in that area.

Okay, you are accusing me of trying to minimize the danger in Iraq. I submit that I am closer to reality than those trying to maximize the danger in Iraq. You can't even compare what's happening in Iraq to what happened in Iwo Jima or the Battle of the Bulge. We had resistance while occupying Germany after WWII, also. The difference was that the bleeding heart media wasn't around bashing our troops every chance they got, and we didn't have to operate like scared kittens around the bad guys.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I don't know if the media is reporting this fact, but our guys are actually afraid to shoot back because of all the paperwork that is involved. I'm sure your buddy in the army can attest to that. We need to get the media out of there, - or at least tell them they won't be protected by US troops anymore-, then tell our soldiers to go do what they are good at. Breaking things and killing people. Simple as that.

We strung up some of the resistance terrorists and they got the message and gave up. As long as our troops have to operate with one hand tied behind their backs and the media and politicians bashing them left and right (But I support the troops!), things in Iraq will not get better. We have to be as tough as or tougher than the enemy we face.

Meh. I should not have broken this into two quotes. see above.

As far as your border patrol issues, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would also add the assault on our gun rights by the Federal Government as another war that is being fought as we speak.

If the Dems take my guns away, I am moving to another more gun friendly country where I can pay the chief law enforcement official off, and i can carry in order to defent myself. I may have 500K dollars worth of training, but that training didnt include stopping bullets a'la Matrix style.

 

[fossten]

If the Dems take my guns away, I am moving to another more gun friendly country where I can pay the chief law enforcement official off, and i can carry in order to defent myself. I may have 500K dollars worth of training, but that training didnt include stopping bullets a'la Matrix style.

:I

 

[MAC1]

Blair isn't bowing under pressure, he's simply turning control over to the Iraqi military as planned. The Brits will still maintain 5000 troop in Iraq and those troops will be withdrawn, according to Blair, as the circumstances permit.

 

[97silverlsc]

Why the British are scaling back in Iraq
The military can't fight there and in Afghanistan without approaching 'operational failure,' one critic says. Something had to give.
By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
February 22, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ry?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
LONDON — Britain's decision to pull 1,600 troops out of Iraq by spring, touted by U.S. and British leaders as a turning point in Iraqi sovereignty, was widely seen Wednesday as a telling admission that the British military could no longer sustain simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British military is approaching "operational failure," former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warned this week.

"Because the British army is in essence fighting a far more intensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, there's been a realization that there has to be some sort of transfer of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan," said Clive Jones, a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Leeds, who has closely followed Britain's Iraq deployment.

"It's either that, or you risk in some ways losing both," he said. "It's the classic case of 'Let's declare victory and get out.' "

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has been pressed to add 800 troops to Afghanistan to halt a resurgent Taliban and a worrying escalation of drug trafficking, at the same time that it is beset by criticism for joining the United States in an unpopular invasion and prolonged war in Iraq. The 132nd British soldier to die in Iraq, Pvt. Luke Daniel Simpson, was buried Wednesday. He was killed Feb. 9.

The decision to draw down forces by more than 20% in the southern city of Basra means that Britain will significantly shrink its military footprint at a time when the Pentagon is increasing U.S. troop levels to battle militants to the north, in Baghdad and Al Anbar province.

The Bush administration hastened to present the British decision as an indication that the U.S.-led military operation was succeeding. Vice President Dick Cheney called the reduction "an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the U.S.-led coalition "remains intact" even though the roster of nations contributing troops, excluding the U.S., has fallen to 25 from 35.

But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.

Once a promising beacon, Basra suffers from sectarian violence as well as Shiite militia clashes over oil smuggling. Ferocious street battles have broken out between rival Shiite Muslim groups in provincial capitals such as Samawah, Kut and Diwaniya in the last year.



Congressional critics

Democratic leaders in Congress denounced the Bush administration assessment as misleading.

"No matter how the White House tries to spin it, the British government has decided to split with President Bush and begin to move their troops out of Iraq," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "This should be a wake-up call to the administration. Prime Minister Blair's announced redeployment of British troops is a stunning rejection of President Bush's high-risk Iraq policy."

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said the British decision "confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people" about the decision to boost the U.S. force.

"The president's escalation plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq is out of step with the American people and our allies," Pelosi said in a statement. "Why are thousands of additional American troops being sent to Iraq at the same time that British troops are planning to leave?"

In Britain, Blair's opponents quickly painted the withdrawal as an admission of failure.

"The unpalatable truth is that we will leave behind a country on the brink of civil war, in which reconstruction has stalled and corruption is endemic, and a region that is a lot less stable than it was in 2003," Liberal Democratic Party leader Menzies Campbell said in Wednesday's Parliament debate on the troop drawdown.

"That is a long way short of the beacon of democracy in the Middle East that was promised some four years ago," he said.

For Blair, the decision to begin reducing Britain's 7,100 troops in the south to 5,500, with possible further withdrawals later in the year, was almost a political necessity. His Labor Party is trailing in the polls ahead of crucial regional elections in the spring. And Blair is preparing to hand over the reins of government this year, most likely to his treasury minister, fellow Labor leader Gordon Brown, who favors phasing out Britain's deployment in Iraq.

In announcing the troop reductions, Blair said they coincided with the increasing assumption of security responsibilities by Iraqi military and police forces. He said British troops would continue to patrol the Iranian border and remain at their main base in Basra through at least 2008, to assist Iraqi forces if needed.

"It is important to show the Iraqi people that we do not desire our forces to remain any longer than they are needed, but whilst they are needed, we will be at their side," Blair told Parliament.

"The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad. There is no Sunni insurgency. There is no Al Qaeda base. There is little Shia-on-Sunni violence," despite "often intense fire" from Shiite militias targeting British troops, he said.

"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis," Blair said.

Most analysts say the prime minister's assertion that significant progress had been made in securing southern Iraq stretched the facts. Though the south is not nearly as violent and chaotic as the capital and the Sunni heartland to the west, it remains jittery, unstable and frequently bloody. Shiite militias and armed gangs lord over such cities as Basra and Amarah, as well as the long, desolate stretches of roadway through the marshlands and deserts of the south.

British bases in Basra regularly come under mortar fire. British troops engage in almost daily gunfights with militiamen. In recent months, the British all but evacuated their downtown base and moved to a more secure site on the grounds of the city's airport.



Bastion for Islamists

A study on the south issued this week by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that has been sympathetic to the Bush administration's foreign policy goals, describes southern Iraq in dire terms. It notes that Basra, once one of Iraq's more liberal and cosmopolitan cities, has become a bastion for Islamists who use the south's vast oil wealth to "fill their war chests."

"The province has suffered one of the worst reversals of fortune of any area in Iraq since the fall of Saddam [Hussein]'s regime," the report says.

Military and political analysts said a British drawdown in the region could leave a vacuum that could provide shelter to militiamen displaced during stepped-up U.S.-Iraqi operations in Baghdad, in a location where Iranian influence is great.

Equally serious, they said, is the fact that Basra and its environs are a crucial supply link to U.S. forces in Baghdad.

"The fear is essentially that when the U.K. pulls out, the militias will come to control the situation, rather than the Iraqi army," said Michael J. Williams, head of the transatlantic program at the London-based Royal United Services Institute.

Although U.S. and British leaders have taken pains to deny any split in policy over Iraq, "if the security situation in Basra was perfect, should the Brits be withdrawing troops, or reallocating them someplace else where they're needed, which is Baghdad?" Williams said.

"The fact is that the troops that work best alongside the Americans are leaving the country," he said.

 

[Calabrio]

Why the British are scaling back in Iraq....(according to what)...one critic says.

Thanks for your input.

 

[TheDude]

I have a question (anyone)... Considering Britain’s role is a mere (comparably speaking)7,000 men, how much of a negative impact would it have if they were to withdraw all 7,000 in a few months time?

 

[97silverlsc]

February 23, 2007
Fears grow over Iran
Tom Baldwin in Washington and Philip Webster, Political Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1426601.ece
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production”. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.

But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.

Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.

Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.

The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.

But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

The diplomatic options will be on the table on Monday when representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany meet in London to begin drafting a new resolution.

It was notable that Mr Blair’s remarks yesterday closely resembled those of Jack Straw last year, who said that an attack on Iran was “inconceivable”, angering Washington and perhaps contributing to his removal as Foreign Secretary.

The Prime Minister’s comments reflect what British officials have been saying privately for some time, but also show a growing streak of independence from Mr Bush. The White House was unhappy with the timing of Mr Blair’s announcement this week on withdrawing 1,600 British troops, concerned that it undercut Mr Bush’s efforts to shore up support for his troop surge on Capitol Hill while sending out “mixed messages” to the Iranians.

Britain has also privately expressed concern over the handling of the US military briefing last week which alleged that the “highest levels” of the Iranian Government were behind the supply of weapons to Iraqi militias.

- Mr Straw, the Leader of the Commons, did break ranks yesterday by declaring that the Government was committed to a full inquiry into mistakes made in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

He said that he was ready “in due course” for a wider inquiry than those held to date. However a Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that there would come a time to “look at these issues”.

 

[MonsterMark]

Phil,

Can you please stop with the copy and paste crap and actually spend a second typing what YOU really think?

Get's tiring seeing you copy/paste every single discussion.

And Frogman,

I hardly doubt you are 'armed to the teeth' over in Iraq. (I could be wrong but just trusting my instincts here.)

Maybe your employer let's you carry a side-arm, but I just don't see a civilian employee walking down the street with body armor and a H&K 416.

 

[Frogman]

You believe what you will, mm. I have no intention nor the need to prove to you what gear I wear.

I don't like the 416 anyways. Too bulky for what we do. We carry the FN P90's.

 

[fossten]

We carry the FN P90's.

NICE.:shifty:

 

[MonsterMark]

You believe what you will, mm. I have no intention nor the need to prove to you what gear I wear.

Set me straight my man. Not questioning your integrity at all. Just curious as to how you 'civvies' get to dress. Full tactical seems a bit 'large' for a civilian contractor. I truly don't know. If you don't feel the need to fill me in, fine, your perogative.

Unless of course it is a national secret. At that point you are better off telling the NYT.