(POL) United Kingdom to begin pullout from Iraq

[SirFozzie]

The official announcement was just a newsflash on cnn.com

Huge news to me, as this will probably embolden the opponents of the war here in the US, because the UK had been the backstop that made this an international force instead of a US-Only force (there's supposedly 21 nations involved, but except for the UK/US forces, none had more then a hundred or two involved.

A good chunk out now, and by Christmas next year, just about all of them out? Wonder if that means a US time table has been set (probably in fear that if the a Democratic Party candidate wins the 2008 election, they'd yank the rug out from under, anyway.)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6380933.stm

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

The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons on Wednesday in which he is expected clarify the details.

Mr Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later.

Some 7,000 UK troops are currently serving in Iraq and about 1,500 are expected to return within weeks.

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

He said by Christmas a total of 3,000 troops were expected to have returned to the UK from Iraq.

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".

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

[NoMyths]

Tragedy, sadness, and little else.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Tragedy, sadness, and little else.

Couldn't disagree more.

[Easy Mac]

Tom Brady wouldn't have pulled out.

[SirFozzie]

The interesting thing is that the third strongest party (the Liberal Democrat Party) in England is/was calling for a full pullout by October 07.

While they only control about 10% of the House of Commons, could be very interesting in the next few months as the next set of elections draw closer (Blair was pretty much knocked out of the PM role for, amongst other things, the UK's role in Iraq)

[AlexB]

Hoo-fucking-ray.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The interesting thing is that the third strongest party (the Liberal Democrat Party) in England is/was calling for a full pullout by October 07.

While they only control about 10% of the House of Commons, could be very interesting in the next few months as the next set of elections draw closer (Blair was pretty much knocked out of the PM role for, amongst other things, the UK's role in Iraq)

The Liberal Democrats have about as much sway over the government as the Libertarians have in the US, and I would say that the odds of them ever becoming the "opposition" or the government are about as slim as the US electing a third party president. The Lib Dems usually benefit from protest votes. I have never met somebody who admitted to voting for them. Nobody takes the Liberal Democrats seriously.

I don't think Iraq is totally responsible for Tony Blair leaving his job. He dragged the Labour party towards the right centre position which has not gone down well with labour activists, and anger has been building up for a decade. The war has provided ammunition, but he would probably be facing the same kind of pressure regardless.

[King of New York]

I'd be interested in knowing what sorts of conversations Blair and the Bush administration had about the British withdrawal. Did the US government object? The timing seems a bit odd--with the US touting its "surge" and England making plans to withdraw simultaneously, it seems as though Bush and Blair are not on the same page any longer.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Tom Brady wouldn't have pulled out.

money

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Hoo-fucking-ray.

Jari Rantanen's Scarf begs to differ.

[wbatl1]

The real question that should be asked is: Why did this announcement come so soon after the announcement that Prince Harry (I think it is) is going to deploy...

Conspiracy in the Crown Room!

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Couldn't disagree more.

Couldn't agree with your disagree more.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Couldn't agree with your disagree more.

Couldn't disagree with your agree of his disagree more.... I think.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Couldn't disagree with your agree of his disagree more.... I think.

Well at least we agree on that

[KevinNU7]

Did anyone actually read the article? They are withdrawing some troops over time but will only go down about 3,000 by Christmas. Then at the end of 2008 they maybe completely out but that is "not a fair representation of what is true at the moment". So at this point they are pulling over what 2-3 years?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Did anyone actually read the article?

Not me.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Did anyone actually read the article? They are withdrawing some troops over time but will only go down about 3,000 by Christmas. Then at the end of 2008 they maybe completely out but that is "not a fair representation of what is true at the moment". So at this point they are pulling over what 2-3 years?

From what I understand, and I admit that I haven't been able to follow this that much today, I don't think it's the number of troops that is the issue here. The reason why this is grabbing headlines has much more to do with the fact that the UK is bringing troops home not long after the US declared they are sending more over. Considering how this whole Iraq operation has really been Bush+Blair, the fact that the UK are now taking a reverse stance to the US is raising some eyebrows.

It may very well be that the US actually has no problem with it (and from the quotes I read early today that seemed to be the case) as the areas that were being looked after by British forces are stable, or perhaps the US prefers just to handle matters themselves in the hostile zones.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, exactly so. The question becomes is the US ok with this and if so, why couldn't some British troops that were not needed be moved to Baghdad instead of sent back home and having a "surge" in US troops in the Baghdad region.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, exactly so. The question becomes is the US ok with this and if so, why couldn't some British troops that were not needed be moved to Baghdad instead of sent back home and having a "surge" in US troops in the Baghdad region.

If the US is OK with this then it definately has to be because the US would rather handle matters themselves. I can't think of any other reason that makes sense.

The official response from the US administration will likely be to praise the job that the British have done in the areas they've been positioned, but I have no idea what they'll say to explain away not requesting British help in the hostile areas.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

If the US is OK with this then it definately has to be because the US would rather handle matters themselves. I can't think of any other reason that makes sense.

The official response from the US administration will likely be to praise the job that the British have done in the areas they've been positioned, but I have no idea what they'll say to explain away not requesting British help in the hostile areas.

Well, you have to realize that the 2 countries are involved in different areas of the country. The U.S. has Baghdad, the UK has Basra. Basra is much less chaotic and deadly. I think there are a number of factors. British public sentiment has turned drastically against the war. Although Blair is calling it quits, his party is in some trouble. I think they want to be seen as the party that eventually starts bringing the troops home. I also think for that reason, there is simply no way in hell Blair was going to offer up troops for Baghdad. So, it's not a matter of the U.S. wanting to handle it themselves, it's that the UK is not doing Baghdad no way no how. Since Basra is quieting down relatively speaking, it makes political sense to send them home.

As for numbers, Basra has about 7,000 UK troops. The 1,500 drawn down represents a little over 20% pullout of troop strength.

My guess is the U.S. would have preferred the troops stay so it does not stand in stark contrast to the surge, but I don't think Blair had the will to just leave them there for publicity purposes.

I could be wrong, but that's my hunch from what I've read so far. The U.S. will spin it that the pullout is a result of quelling the conflict in Basra and that it hopes it will be doing the same after the surge. I'm not sure it would be spin though, it may very well be the case that policing Basra has been successful.

[Dutch]

The U.S. will spin it that the pullout is a result of quelling the conflict in Basra and that it hopes it will be doing the same after the surge.

Ah, a resident expert. How will the insurgents spin it?

[Dutch]

Blair to announce Iraq withdrawal plan
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 28 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070221/...u/britain_iraq

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, British media reported.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

Is that not saying two different things?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

British public sentiment has turned drastically against the war.

Turned?

[Ryan S]

There is some talk that the British presence in Afghanistan may increase, so it is possible that they are withdrawing troops from a reasonably stable part of Iraq to allow them to increase the flow to Afghanistan.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

There is some talk that the British presence in Afghanistan may increase, so it is possible that they are withdrawing troops from a reasonably stable part of Iraq to allow them to increase the flow to Afghanistan.

That's a good idea, I actually think more troops in Afghanistan would make a difference.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Jari Rantanen's Scarf begs to differ.

Ah , but that's the difference between scarves and shorts - scarves can be killers, throttling people at will, but shorts are there just to protect the owner's modesty.

A bizarre, tenuous, almost accurate analogy

[AlexB]

FWIW the reason is not that Basra is stable - our lads are getting attacked and killed, as are locals. Not as much as Baghdad by any stretch, but it's happening.

My initial response was at the title of this thread a few seconds before I was going to bed last night. After looking into it a little more its yet another half-hearted/half-assed action from our government - we're pulling out some troops to appeal to the British public, but we're leaving some there for up to two years so as not to completely abandon Bush. So in effect those that are left will be under greater pressure and more at risk. Great move Blair - it needs to be all or nothing, in the oft spoken words of whoever 'you can't please all of the people all of the time'

This guy is just a downright slimeball - earlier this week in order to appease the growing concern over unrestricetd immigration and open borders, and the drain on the welfare state and public services, he announced benefit claminats would need to speak English as a second language after 6 months of entering the country - I agree that this is at least a step towards integration of immigrants, which is ideal.

However, now it emerges at the very same time he ushered through major cuts in the aid to these same immigrants for the language courses they need to be able to learn English! So the first announcement was a smokescreen for cuts that were actually almost directly opposed to it...

Is the timing and manner of the announcement of the withdrawal of troops* from Iraq completely unrelated to the ongoing investigation into peerages for sale, road charging, etc? I think not.






*this is the point at which Blair mutters quickly under his breath in order that he's not actually lying that in fact it's only some troops, and it's not immediate, but please let this give me a few days of peace

[Dutch]

FWIW the reason is not that Basra is stable.

Time will tell. This will be a test for the Iraqi Army.