Submit your comments on this article |
Iraq |
US, UK, troop pull-out to begin in months |
2005-12-13 |
BRITAIN and America are planning a phased withdrawal of their forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad after this weekâs elections. In a move that has caused alarm in the outgoing Iraqi administration, American and British officials have made clear that they regard the end of Iraqâs two-and-a-half-year transitional period as the green light to begin withdrawing some of their combined force of around 170,000 troops as early as March. A senior Western diplomat in Baghdad said yesterday: âOne of the first things we will talk about (with the new Iraqi government) is the phased transfer of security, particularly in cities and provinces. It will happen progressively over the next year.â America has more than 160,000 troops in central and northern Iraq, and Britain about 8,000 based in four southern provinces. Contingency plans are already in place for the small British contingents in the two provinces of Dhiqar and Muthana to go as early as the spring. The third to go will be Misan province, a far more restive region. A senior British officer said that Iraqi security forces might be able to âkeep a lid on the violenceâ by the end of this year. The Americans have increased their troop levels to help to bolster security for the elections on Thursday. But they are planning to pull out 30,000 by the new year and may reduce their presence below 100,000 in the coming months. US forces have already handed over security in Najaf and Karbala provinces and in city centres such as Tikrit, Saddam Husseinâs home town. The moves appear to run contrary to statements by President Bush and John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who insist that coalition forces will not âcut and runâ and will stay until the mission in Iraq is complete. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Times yesterday that a hasty exit risked plunging the country into a new bout of violence. âThose who advocate an early withdrawal do not know what is at stake. The huge investment in blood and money sacrificed by the US could be squandered. âThere would be regional interventions by neighbouring countries and others. The fate of this country and the whole region could be endangered,â he said. The move to hand over security to the 225,000 Iraqi soldiers and police who have now been trained for active duty comes in the face of mounting public pressure in both Britain and the US to disengage from Iraq, amid the rising death toll and spiralling costs. Zalman Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Baghdad, said last week that the US military role would increasingly become one of supporting frontline Iraqi forces until it was merely âa reserveâ. âOur goal will be to leave Iraq as soon as possible but without increasing insecurity,â he said. âOur strategic goal is Iraq standing on its own feet and American troops out.â Such open talk of a substantial withdrawal rattles Iraqi leaders, who fear that Washington and London are growing weary of the bloody and costly commitment to Iraq and may be tempted to âdeclare victory and get outâ as some congressmen and MPs are recommending. They fear that a premature withdrawal of foreign forces could encourage the rise of militias, leading to sectarian strife and the settling of old scores. An opinion poll conducted for the BBC in Iraq found that only 10 per cent regarded the removal of US troops from the country as the priority for the new government. The public has doubts about the ability of the Iraqi security forces, in particular the police, which is riddled with militia, and the army, which lacks equipment, training and leadership. |
Posted by:Pappy |
#17 This is a no go unless objectives have been met. |
Posted by: newc 2005-12-13 22:13 |
#16 Well there's no easy answer to the situation anyway. I mean, it was complicated to start with and now there's so many different motives involved that the most positive solution will be the one with least negative consequences...if that is possible...troops in there is problematic, but troops out could be as bad |
Posted by: Maltie 2005-12-13 18:46 |
#15 Ptah, I'm looking for one of Murtha's "redeployments". Say our boyz in Afghanistan "redploy" to Iraq and vice versa, over land of course. The Mad Mullahs(tm) would finally get what's comin'! |
Posted by: BA 2005-12-13 13:47 |
#14 Actually, this could be a plus if it is a well-thought-out withdrawal... To Syria. Or Iran. |
Posted by: Ptah 2005-12-13 13:26 |
#13 BRITAIN and America are planning a phased withdrawal of their forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad after this weekâs elections. Why is it necessary to make these kinds of damned announcements? Talking about this out loud isn't very smart. If the media comes around seeking details about ongoing plans and operations, tell them to GET PHUQUED. |
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-13 12:01 |
#12 Yep, downsizing after the short term retention for the election. Hey, but twist it anyway to make it a victory for the Party of Defeat[tm]. |
Posted by: Shineng Glaigum7653 2005-12-13 11:56 |
#11 Perchance this is an attempt to get the Sunnis to think a bit more rationally about continuing to pee in the charcoal? "C'mon, boys! Settle up! The party's almost over!" |
Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-13 11:51 |
#10 Duh. We artificially bump up numbers for the safe elections. Post elections, they should stay? Makes absolutely NO sense....typical MSM/Donk drivel to blame W no matter what he does |
Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-13 10:21 |
#9 It's obvious, we will need to take direct citizen action (extra-judicial) against the MSM. Maybe some of those Hunter/Killer teams .com has advocated. Me? I'm ALL for it, as I view these vermin as Traitors and enemies of the Country and the People. I'm all for the First Amendment, but there needs to be some accountability for the press and enforcement of the sedition laws. Giving the press carte blanche to do and say whatever they wish without regard for the truth is crazy, with or without the First Amendment. JMNSHO |
Posted by: Doitnow 2005-12-13 10:18 |
#8 What's clear to me is that the Timesonline fuckwits are hoping to stir up some manufactured hysteria. We've said what we have to say, what we're gonna do, and that's that - and it's NOT what this wankpiece is peddling. Assholes. |
Posted by: .com 2005-12-13 09:16 |
#7 One problem is that our troops are needed precisely in places in which much of the population (being pro terrorist) doesn't want them and wanted in places (like the Kurdish areas) where they are unneeded. |
Posted by: mhw 2005-12-13 09:01 |
#6 "The MSM can't tell the truth which is that the Americans are stopping the large scale killing of Sunnis." Sure they can. AFTER the fact. As in "George Bush is to blame for the large scale killing of Sunnis because he withdrew the troops." Once Bush does it, it's automaticly wrong! |
Posted by: Spomosing Thereting3911 2005-12-13 06:41 |
#5 They fear that a premature withdrawal of foreign forces could encourage the rise of militias, leading to sectarian strife and the settling of old scores. The MSM can't tell the truth which is that the Americans are stopping the large scale killing of Sunnis. Will it happen after the Americans pull back? Depends on how long it takes the Sunnis to cave in. My guess is we will see a few thousand dead before the rest get the message. |
Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-13 03:51 |
#4 Just a guess..but i think hear ya, I wouldn't trade one of ours [Marine, soldier, airmen, Navy] for all of theirs, sunni/shia and the msm. btw i use that shampoo myself. |
Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-13 03:47 |
#3 It's not that kind of filth, Red ;-) |
Posted by: Filthy the Dog 2005-12-13 01:49 |
#2 Here Filthy, try some of this |
Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-13 01:12 |
#1 I can't wait for the day when our troops are finally out of there - who will the media then blame when Sunnis continue to blow themselves up in crowds of Shia? Mossad? Aussie surfers? |
Posted by: Filthy the Dog 2005-12-13 00:55 |