Blair’s half-hearted timetable for British troops in Iraq

February 21, 2007

It’s not quite a firm and targeted withdrawal, but it looks like even Tony Blair has seen enough in Iraq.

Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer if Iraqi forces can secure the country’s south, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday.

The announcement, which came as Denmark said it would withdraw its 460 troops and Lithuania said it was considering pulling out its small contingent, comes as the U.S. is implementing an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq — putting Washington on an opposite track as its main coalition allies.

Analysts say there is little point in boosting forces in largely Shiite southern Iraq, where most non-U.S. coalition troops are concentrated. Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble.

The announcement seems half-hearted to the extent that Blair added all kinds of qualifiers and conditions, but it’s fair to say the bottom line remains the same: the Brits are on their way out, leaving the “coalition of the willing” with one willing member.

The Bush administration quickly put on its happy face and described Blair’s announcement as a positive development. British withdrawal, the Bush gang said, is a sign of “success.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played down the British pullback, saying it is consistent with the U.S. plan to turn over more control to Iraqi forces.

“The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits,” Rice said in Germany, where she is meeting with the German foreign minister.

Dick Cheney said the British troop cutbacks are “an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well.” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe added that this is “a sign of success” in Iraq.

At his new blog, Noah Shachtman explained why this isn’t terribly credible.

The British military has been practicing the arts of insurgency and counter-insurgency since at least the days of T.E. Lawrence.  Many of the tactics that American commanders are now looking to employ in Baghdad have been used by British officers in Iraq’s south for years.

More important, perhaps, is that British troops on patrol in places like Basra have allowed American forces to concentrate on Anbar Province, Baghdad, and other problem zones. If the Brits weren’t around, the “surge” would have to be a whole bunch bigger.

So will someone please tell me how in God’s name President Bush can see Tony Blair’s announcement, that he will slowly begin to withdraw UK forces, “as a sign of success?” Or why Dick Cheney would call the drawdown of 1,600 troops “an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well”?

I guess the theory is that southern Iraq will remain stable and secure, even with no outside support. We’ll see how that works out.

So Dick, if the British pullout is a sign of success, wouldn’t US redeployment be a sign of our victory? Just a thought…

  • I guess they think it’s “a sign of success” because now we’ll get Britain’s share of the oil?

    Funny how “cutting and running” is ok if it’s your friends doing it.

  • CB says “I guess the theory is that southern Iraq will remain stable and secure, even with no outside support. We’ll see how that works out.”

    CB … then why do you think it will work in the rest of the country if the US pulls out?

  • Josh posted a note from a reader, that I agree with, wondering if this was such a success and things got better in the south, why don’t they just redeploy those same troops where they are needed.

  • I’ve never understood why the Bush PR machine hasn’t simply declared victory and left: “We toppled a rouge regime and created a real opportunity for Iraqis that they have, through a constitution and elections, begun to take. Iraq, unlike in 2003, is no longer a threat to us or its neighbors, and has no WMD capacity or development programs. The Kurdish areas are strong and growing stronger; the south is significantly rebuilt, and the remaining fighting in central Iraq is between Iraquis who can only resolve this among themselves. In short, we have done what we set out to do, and all an outside power can do. We are proud of our fighting men and women, and grateful to our allies, for this great success that will go down in history as a great triumph of good over evil. And now we look forward to seeing our sons and daughters back on American soil, but we trust all who would sponsor terrorism, destabilize surrounding countries, seek out dangerous weapons of mass destruction, or othrewise threated American and allied interests understand that we will not back down, but will, God forbid we should have to, fight for what is right with massive military superiority and a steely resolve. God bless America, and god speed to Iraq in its continued stability and movement towards rejoiningthe world community in peace and prosperity.”

    Yeah, some on the left would scream, but the MSM and most sheeple would completely buy into it and Bush would be extricated from the morass (and, the only good part, we’d get our people and money the hell out of the middle and perhaps the outsiders would quit instigating in Iraq as well).

  • Bush says “it’s okay.” Rice calls it “part of the plan.” Cheney claims “this proves our point.”

    But you’d never know it from what the Reich noise machine has been doing to Blair the past 48 hours, when hints of this started to pop up “across the pond.” And I’ll wager that Tony’s no longer on the WH “Christmas-card list….”

  • If Bush, Cheney, and Rice think this is good, well do I even have to say it… It’s bad, real bad. Anytime those three meatheads think:
    A) Don’t believe they are actually capable of actual thought
    B) People die, lots of them
    C) They are ALWAYS wrong

  • From the arlicle link:
    “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.

    bu$$h and fellow co-conspiritors, knuckle-draggers and flying monkeys: take note how the diplomatically savvy extricate themselves from self-induced quagmires. Some people realize that there are times when the lure of money no longer validates insolence, hubris and stupidity.

    I also found it interesting, while reading the link and doing a little math, that we have 2,140% more troops there than the Brits, who are leaving, and as for the next highest contributor (S. Korea), we have 6,520% more troops than them. Quite a coaliton little g. aWol bu$$h put together, isn’t it?

  • The reason Blair is pulling British troops out of Iraq is obvious to me, if to no one else. Prince Harry was set to go, and wanted to go, according to his published comments (he didn’t want to “sit on his arse back home while his boys were headed to Iraq”). So I think Queen Elizabeth called Blair and said, “I don’t think so.” The easiest way to avoid duty for the third in line to the throne was to say it was time for troops to come home.

  • Strangely enough, Osama Bin Laden stuck a red hot poker up the butt of Bush, Cheney and Rice today. The Bush Administration announced the remarkable success because now they knew where OBL was for a short period of time today.

    Everything is a success if you spin it enough

  • Oak Park mom … you need to work on that crystal ball, because the UK has announced that Cornet Wales (Prince Harry) will deploy with his unit.

    And the Brits are sending another 1000 to Afghanistan … so maybe their withdrawal is not about cutting & running, but more about putting the forces where they are needed.

    • Comments are closed.