Brits to withdraw from Iraq

welsh

Junkmaster
Apparently, the Brits have figured its time to go home-

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1577937,00.html

Britain to Pull Troops from Iraq as Blair Says 'Don't Force Me Out'
By Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
The Observer UK

Sunday 25 September 2005

Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May. Plan follows pressure for exit strategy.
British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Progress? You've got the beginnings of civil war and a failed constitution, and this is progress?

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

So that's two allies more gone.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

Yeah. Except now that the policy is established to turn back on that would mean more failure, so the pressure will be to withdraw.

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Translation- If it all goes to shit, we're getting the fuck out.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.

On the one hand- this policy could spur the insurgents to get more aggressive and further destablize. Alternatively, they could quiet down and wait for the Brits to leave before stirring up shit.

That said, by making a promise of withdrawal, the Brits are also making a promise that they will restore power to the local Iraqis when goals are set. They did some of the same in Malaysia and Kenya- with success.

What do you think?
 
At first I was happy to hear this, but after some thought I realise it could be a mistake... First they invade a country, than they epicaly suck at controling and/or bringing peace to it and now they are saying "Oops, we fucked up, let's get the fuck out of here."? It doesn't work that way, if you said that you will invade a country to bring stability and democracy, you can't just up and leave when the shit hits the fan...
 
The British have done a better job securing cities than American troops have, but after the prison break faux pas, The Brits are probably wondering how many favors they'll get out of Iraqi officials.

This is probably a good time to get Allied command to re-think their strategy of shooting everybody with a beard at night and start securing the border.
 
There's a lot of call in Public Opinion over here for the troops to come home - Blair was not liked for sending the Black Watch out to help the US - basically, most people here think that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place and so the sooner we come home th ebetter.

That's all very well, but like DDD said, we need to actually make sure the Iraqis can run their country without us first. At least when we're gone thry won't have their police station walls getting knocked down by angry infantrymen.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
At first I was happy to hear this, but after some thought I realise it could be a mistake... First they invade a country, than they epicaly suck at controling and/or bringing peace to it and now they are saying "Oops, we fucked up, let's get the fuck out of here."? It doesn't work that way, if you said that you will invade a country to bring stability and democracy, you can't just up and leave when the shit hits the fan...

They'll do whatever they want, fuck the consequences, the Bush and Blair administrations have made that blindingly obvious with their recent past.
 
Blair was not liked for sending the Black Watch out to help the US

But not disliked enough to get his government voted out. Who said Parliamentary Democracy was better, again? :)
 
Bradylama said:
But not disliked enough to get his government voted out

Ah, but here we enter the realmm of discovering, to your dismay, that Blair is the best of a bad lot.
The only major alternative was a man whose grandparents were refugees and were given asylum in our country and so now he wants to impost harsh laws on immigrants. He seems like a great choice. :roll:
 
I think I’m confused as to why this is news? Saying now that they are going to start withdrawing in May but it being contingent “on the political situation” and that “if things change they may make revisions” sounds like the same anal chimney act the pentagon is shoveling with there “not until we are ready” timeline. It involves a buildup to 160k by December (for elections), Down to 130k by the new year and under 100k by spring, by midyear they were talking about under 30k in Iraq, and that mostly training cadre and air elements. That is of course if the “Elections are a success” and “the Iraqi’s are ready”, so who the hell knows what that means, as I think they are making up the guidelines for that as they go. Lets just hope that the Iraqi’s stick to there guns and are standing on there own in 2007, which is the year the Iraqi’s stated as the “end” of foreign military presence in there country.

However the way British politics work, it may be being pushed and made a big deal for other reasons. Thou I can’t understand the value of saying were coming home this year, maybe, and look we wrote it on paper! But, their motivations may be different and politics by nature are all about smoke and mirrors anyway. The assistance of most of the allies in this was “Token” at best, while appreciated, its still the Americans and Iraqi’s themselves sorting out this mess for the most part. However good on the Brits for standing beside us, and I hope they get out of the box still vertical.

Also the question I have to ask is by what measure do you consider there to be a civil war? I have seen little sign of sectarian violence, if anything the fact that they are still engaging in politics, rallies and voting and not exchanging gunfire and RPG’s is a sign of progress, not failure.
 
Back
Top