Great Britain To Withdraw 3000 Troops From Iraq
The Telegraph reports:
Thousands of British troops will return home from Iraq by the end of May, The Daily Telegraph can reveal today.
Tony Blair will announce within the next fortnight that almost 3,000 troops are to be cut from the current total of 7,200, allowing the military to recover from four years of battle that have left it severely overstretched.
In what will be the first substantial cut of British troops serving in southern Iraq, their number will drop to 4,500 on May 31. The announcement will be made by the Prime Minister before he steps down from office as an intended signal of the achievements the British have made in Iraq — albeit at the cost of 128 dead.
[...]
A senior British officer serving in Iraq said yesterday: “The US situation appears to be getting worse because they are sending more troops while the British are getting out of Basra. But the situation is different, with the Americans facing a gargantuan problem of sectarian violence.”
[...]
Military planners are drawing up force levels for when Basra comes under “provincial Iraqi control” at the end of spring, when all security will be handed over to the Iraqi police and army.The British Army will then position its troops at a major base that is being expanded at Basra air station, five miles west of the city, where they will be on standby. A small force of 200 men will be left in central Basra.
The senior British officer is – of course – completely right. The problems the U.S. faces in Iraq is quite different from the ones the British face. For one, the area the British are ‘occupying’ are not torn apart by sect. violence. As such, the withdrawal from 3000 British troops doesn’t have to be bad news. It can also be interpreted as good news (as Gateway Pundit does).
James Forsyth, however, explains:
The British position is about U.K. politics, not Iraq. The long-awaited handover from Tony Blair to the Chancellor Gordon Brown is expected to be announced in May and take effect in June. Both men would like British withdrawal from Iraq to be clearly underway by then—Blair doesn’t want to leave with Iraq unresolved and Brown doesn’t want the war it to tarnish the beginning of his premiership. An opinion poll earlier this week illustrates just how unpopular the mission now is; 60 percent want British troops withdrawn as soon as possible, and more people hold Bush responsible for the continuing violence in Iraq than al Qaeda, Iran, Syria and Saddam combined.
I agree with James’s take on this news.
10 Responses to “Great Britain To Withdraw 3000 Troops From Iraq”
I think they are both right. It is a positive sign that this area is stable enough for the Brits to go home, but it’s obviously also true that it was a given that they would be going home because of the internal political pressure in the UK. So, because this was foreseen, the UK forces were handling the more stable part of the country while we take up the slack. Condi Rice basically said so just a short while ago in her testimony to the Senate: the main reason for the planned influx of the 21,500 troops is to take up the slack.
Shinseki wanted several hundred thousand.
Then some neocons proposed an addition of 50000 to those actually in Iraq.
This was subsequently reduced to 30000.
This new calculation leaves only 22000-3000=19000 as reinforcements.
US military say they have only 9000 for deployment.
This surge is becoming more and more of a simple ripple.
It’s impact is very questionable.
Expect no miracles from it!
Yep, undeniably true.
However, I think that no matter the situation in Basra right now, Blair would have withdrawn those troops. Not doing it would literally be political suicide for all of them.
There is some violence in Southern Iraq. The Shia militias have been fighting for influence and power for years. This violence is on a much lower scale than the levels in Baghdada. Basra has been a trouble spot for years. Steven Vincent died while reporting and blogging about militias in Basra before the MSM in the US even noticed militias. SV reported for conservative sorses and supported the Iraq war. His death foreshadowed the rise of the militias and sectarian violence when the Right claimed that the MSM ignored ‘good’ stories.
we’ll step up so they can step out…
Bush is all alone on this feeble ripple, and he, McCain, Lieberman and the entire GOP will reap the rewards of the stellar effects of this stupid and ugly waste of more US soldiers.
GreenDreams: I sincerely hope you’re right, esp. now that Bush is escalating the war to provocative strikes against Iranian assets. The Democratic Congress has to be active, though, in pursuing whatever means are available to oppose Bush. That means cutting off funding and beginning impeachment proceedings – all things which take some spine to do, and some fearlessness.
But at this point? Getting rid of Bush, even if it means Cheney becomes President, is essential. We have to start somewhere, and if we’re going to rely on legal means, that’s where we have to start.
I think there’s another option for Congress, one that plays well on the poll results and the 2008 elections. I also think it is exactly what the Democrats will do: call for a voice vote in the House and the Senate for support or opposition to an escalation in Iraq (the military strategy formerly known as “surge”). Legislators up for election in 2008 must be aware of how unpopular this escalation is. The vote provides a convenient scorecard for voters in 2008. We are already seeing Republican legislators come out publicly against the escalation, and this is bound to increase as legislators decide whether or not to ride George W. Bush’s coattails to Hell.
Blair doesn’t want to leave with Iraq unresolved
is there any better example of the difference between Blair and Bush? I think not.
too bad we don’t follow Britian and leave as well.
Maybe the motto for the new strategy should be “when they (British and Iraqis) stand down, we stand up”. Some coalition of the willing.