Off his leash?
Maybe they’re worried about Prince Harry, but the Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday the plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq. 1500 to return over the next several weeks, with 3000 to be returned by the end of 2007. Maybe this is why Bush is looking for a “surge”. Does anyone still remember the cozy days of the Coalition of the willing?
My favorite quote:
“The president is grateful for the support of the British Forces in the past and into the future,” U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Washington. “While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we’re pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis. “The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq,” Johndroe said. “President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad.” “We want to bring our troops homes as well,” Johndroe said. “It’s the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That’s the goal and always has been.”
Ah, let’s have a little surge party, and we’ll bring them home. Well, except for what’s left at the embassy.
Maybe the reason that the UK is able to remove from troops from Iraq is because they did not make a huge hash up of the transfer of power to the Iraq forces in Basra.
To start, look at the scenario “3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient.” That IF is key as the British government has already stated that they will not pull out those 3,000 troops until they feel confidant that the Iraqi Security/Police Forces can handle the responsibility. Second Basra is not Baghdad, or Al Anbar and it is a grave mistake to assume that there is no differential. How many reports have shown up on the mainstream media regarding the deteriorating security situation in Basra? Very few and that is no coincidence.
Now I know everyone wants a political football to run with, but you’re looking in the wrong place. As far as the surge is concerned with this, they are two separate events, and should be treated as such. Moreover, this is a success story and much praise should be given to the Brits, Denmark’s soldiers (who are also withdrawing not sure how yahoo news missed that), and the Coalition for their efforts, Ali Sistani for his work in Basra, and the Iraqi security forces because without them this withdrawal would not have been possible. Finally as a prediction, expect similar trends starting with U.S. forces in late fall early winter.
To answer the Editor’s question: The Coalition of the Willing is still there and will continue to work side by side with the Iraqis to help the country leave behind fascism and enter the 21st century.
What isn’t mentioned is the British are going to redeploy some of these troops to Afghanistan where the situation is deteriorating more rapidly than in Basra. Britain’s commitment of forces to the region won’t decrease much if at all.
Also, C-SPAN (c-span.org) has the 1 hour video up on the web of Tony Blizzaire giving the speech to Parliament about this timely withdrawal.
Why do politicians even bother making speeches, anymore… when everything important they might say has already been “leaked” or “expected to announce” – days in advance?
Only thing worse is when a bunch of “experts” give “evidence” that Iran is supplying bombs to Iraqi millitants – but only speak “anonymously” because otherwise they aren’t authorized to have any contact with the media…
Did you all hear the audio clip (OF JUST ONE MONTH AGO!) Blair denouncing, in the most emphatic and absolutist terms, how a time-table for withdrawal would be DISASTROUS?!?
So now even Tony Blair is a slow-bleed, flip flopping, cut-and-runner! 😉
It’s only a matter of time before the GOP is, too.
#6, I think even the GOP will cut and run before September. Then blame it all on the Democrats for the current civil war.
The troops are needed in Afghanistan to fight the real terrorists.
#7 Fusion,
You may be right about September. You are SURELY RIGHT that they will blame this loss on the Democrats.
(They blame EVERYTHING on the Democrats! That call that being “The party of personal responsibility” i.e. the liberals are responsible for everything bad and the conservatives for everything good. .)
Have you heard this suggestion by the Republicans, “If Democrats are serious, they should just cut funding to the war.”? I’ve heard it a dozen times now by some elected official and that many times on FOX.
The first time I heard it, I figured it was a taunt — but I’ve heard it so many times now that it simply must be an orchestrated talking point — probably focus-grouped by Karl Rove.
Right now, the blame shifting isn’t working too well — this notion that Democrats lost this war because they didn’t support it doesn’t seem to be sticking very well.
Probably because we all remember that the Democrats generally DID support this war in the beginning and it only lost support when — well — when Bush and Rumsfeld’s incompetence lost the war.
But if the Democrats cut the funding, it’s unleashes the Republicans from the Iraq boondoggle anchor around their neck while still allowing the GOPs to claim that they would have swum to safety on their own if only the Democrats hadn’t saved them!