Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Wednesday to the British Parliament that his government plans to withdraw about 1,600 of the 7,100 UK troops currently stationed in southern Iraq (“Blair announces Iraq troops cutâ€). His office has consistently dispelled rumors, however, that all British troops would leave Iraq by 2008, but did concede that another 3,000 troops will likely return home by the end of this year. In his statement, Blair cited the “relative stability†of the Basra region which has been managed mainly by British forces since the start of the occupation phase of the conflict. The British government has also denied rumors that it is under pressure from the Bush administration to maintain its troop levels as the US launches a troop surge of 21,500 additional soldiers to Baghdad and Anbar province. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice characterized the British withdrawal as consistent with the overall plan of stepping down as Iraqis prove able to stand up and provide their own security. British troop levels peaked during the invasion at over 40,000. US forces currently account for more than 90% of the coalition in Iraq.
On a related note, Denmark and South Korea recently announced plans to withdraw their forces from Iraq, and Lithuania is considering doing the same. Spain, Italy, Ukraine, and Japan all had relatively significant numbers of personnel in Iraq, and have since withdrawn all forces.
Does the withdrawal of most of Britain’s forces actually mesh with the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy, or do you sense behind-the-scenes tension between Washington and London? Do you think Blair is reacting to the British public’s general discontent over the war, or is the UK’s “mission†really accomplished? Will this move cause other remaining members of the coalition to follow suit?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Topic is a regular publication of the Gather Editorial Team. You can follow it everyday at Gather Daily.Â
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous Today's Topics on Iraq:
Obama's war stance under attack from... Down Under?Â
Did the Pentagon mishandle prewar intelligence?Â
Who should be the 'decider' of U.S. war policy?
Can the anti-war movement keep up the momentum?
Is a Senate resolution against the troop surge a worthwhile idea?
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
He's also quite aware of his own nation's history and how poorly the Brits dealt with Iraq in the 1930s when they brought together factions that hated each other and forced them to live under one roof. I'm sure that he doesn't want a repeat on his hands as well.
As for the grand coalition, it consists of 145,000 US troops, about 3,500 UK troops (formerly 8,500), 1,000 Australian troops on non-combat duty, 600 doctors from Japan, 500 non-combat troops from South Korea and that's pretty much it. A few hundred troops from Eastern Europe were here and there once in a while, but they are long gone. A coalition that's 95% one country doesn't seem like a solid, united coalition...
America can win even with Britain sending home some of their troops.
The election went to Democrats last November for two reasons. One is the war and the lies leading up to it and through it. The other was simply the do nothing corrupt congress that saw one scandal after another. Bringing the two together and the results are what you saw. If the Democrats don't find a way to at least fix one of those, they won't hold onto their wins and they know this.
There are rules of human behavior that must be followed in order to lead a group of people toward a long-term goal. The number one rule is to establish a clear plan of action before the goal in undertaken.
If a clear plan is not established before the goal is undertaken, every step toward the goal is unclear as to whether it is helping to achieve the goal or keeping the goal from being reached.
Since ( for whatever reason ) a clear-cut plan of action was never established when initiating the war in Iraq, we the public are left to decide for ourselves what every twist and turn along the way means.
Has enough progress in Iraq been made so that removing some British troops makes sense ? Who knows ? We the public have never been presented an official accounting of where progress in Iraq stands. Logic says that a statement like "Progress has been made. " would be followed by some sort of physical evidence to back it up. If there is evidence, what and where is it ?
The sad fact is, we the people have no idea where progress in Iraq stands today. Liberal media says there is no progress. Conservative media says we are winning. It has to be one way or the other, and the sad fact is ,when it comes right down to it, none of us that aren't there know for sure.
This "unknowing" will lead to defeat even if there is a chance for success. Human nature avoids "smoke and mirrors" and any situation that is not producing hard-core facts is perceived as "smoke and mirrors " whether it is or not.
As Clara Peller said decades ago in the old Wendy's commercials, "Where's The Beef ?"
First, he doesn't want to leave office with the war hanging over his head. Some might call it an attack of conscience; others might call it strategic.
Secondly, the Bush administration will undoubtedly say this is proof that the their plan (including the latest "surge") and the war was a great success.
As George points out: "The sad fact is, we the people have no idea where progress in Iraq stands today." This will possibly overshadow any proof that the war and, especially, the Bush administration was very, very wrong.
Wouldn't want to screw up the line of succession - especially since there isn't a breeding-capable Princess of Wales anymore.
On the topic of "Are we winning"- this issue is perfectly clear. If you define winning as establishing a stable nation that takes the rule of law seriously and is not wracked by sectarian slaughter, well no we are not winning. And it is absurd for the Bush administration to "welcome" the news of Blair's move because it is evidence of "success" in Iraq. Please, that is just goofy. The UK soldiers were assigned to the most stable part of Iraq, a Shiite region far from the craziness of Anbar. Their departure will not be a problem- but note that they are going home, not being reassigned to Baghdad were the trouble is.
"The anti-war people are definitely winning the heart and mind battle through most of Europe. That doesn't make them right though."
Doesn't make the pro-war people right either. It's also weird that governments that are involved in the Iraq war only see pulling our or doing the same thing (maybe with a dash more troops) as the only options. No one has come up with a viable strategy to really do anything besides either stay there and keep getting killed or just get out and let them deal with it themselves.
Because there are no effective or real solutions, no on bothers to come up with one, neither the pro-war or anti-war crowd.
"if we leave Iraq without them being able to sustain a democracy, we're screwed."
You're screwed anyway. Even if Iraq turns into a carbon copy of America on some blue moon by a freak accident of nature and the US withdraws, al-Queda will instantly claim victory and rush in to try and destabilize the nation. It's impossible to control 20,000 homicidal maniacs spread across 40 countries just by trying to make Iraq sound and look like America junior.
Plus, you conveniently left out the sectarian violence. Iraq is in the middle of a self ethnic cleansing that had been going on for over a thousand years. Let's not jump to talking point memos and oversimplifications, shall we?
In all seriousness, we should understand what is meant by the word COALITION.
COALITION: A group of usually two to six male lions that drive off and replace the male lions in a pride in order to mate with the females and protect the resulting offspring.
What a very apt use of the word COALITION! So to answer the question:
A) No. The Coalition of Halliburtion, Blackwater, Bechtel, et al still stands strong and this will do little to harm the REAL MISSION in Iraq.
Maybe, US leaders will follow their example.
You've hit on the crux of the matter! The no bid contracts and the contract for the American oil companies to take the oil for 40 years. These are what the war was about and they are what we are trying to protect! There is no "coalition" in the true sense of the word. But we'll stay there to protect corporate investment!