Britian sets Timetable for withdrawl

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

Quote:

MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal
By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
Published: July 4 2005 22:02 | Last updated: July 4 2005 22:02

The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.

In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.

Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials.

But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command.

Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan.

In that role, the UK forces would help fight insurgents and provide support for the war on narcotics in the region.

While the MoD insisted that no decision had been made on Afghan or Iraqi deployments, John Reid, defence secretary, said yesterday that Iraqi forces could begin to take charge of security in their country within a year.

In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Reid suggested that plans were consistent with the recent prediction of Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, that it could take take up to 12 years to defeat the Iraqi insurgency.

He told the BBC that while the insurgency in Iraq may go on for "some considerable time", there remained a second question.

"Who will lead the security efforts against the insurgency? And I think in a relatively short period of time we can start the process of that being led by the Iraqi security forces themselves," he said.

Mr Reid went on: "So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British forces.

"I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi forces leading the effort themselves."

It is a view echoed by military commanders. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup, the current Royal Air Force commander who will become chief of the general staff next year, said more stable Iraqi provinces - including those under UK command - were likely to be handed over to local security forces more quickly than first thought.

By next April, a best case scenario would see current troops levels of 8,500 reduced to about 4,000-5,000, with a further cut in the period leading to the first quarter of 2007, when the British military presence is expected to fall to about 1,000 advisers and training personnel.

Additional reporting by Victoria Burnett in Kabul

My god, a timetable for withdrawl.

If the Brits can do it, why can't we?

Let's hear all the bullsh*t answers to that question.

Cycloptichorn

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,455 • Replies: 20

No top replies

Mr Reid went on: "So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British forces.

"I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi forces leading the effort themselves."

Just one, insignificant persons, opinion. Not a policy statement, thankfully.

0 Replies

This can only be a good thing. The Arab world needs to see that the West were genuine in their desire to allow Iraq to run its own affairs.

This withdrawal has to be carried out carefully though, and a competent Iraqi force should be in place well beforehand.

Let's hope that it is not too long before all of the troops can withdraw.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Mr Reid went on: "So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British forces.

"I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi forces leading the effort themselves."

Just one, insignificant persons, opinion. Not a policy statement, thankfully.

So, it sounds like you're hoping that it turns out that Rumsfeld is correct?
That it may take YEARS?

Better the words of a straight forward insignificant person, than those of a devious bugger with related business interests, IMO.

0 Replies

Woiyo

Quote:

Just one, insignificant persons, opinion. Not a policy statement, thankfully.

Well, the policy statement is in the first paragraph:

Quote:

The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.

So it looks as if there is more to this than one man's opinion.

And I thought you were pro-withdrawl anyways? Shouldn't you be supporting this?

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

ps For a minute or two I couldn't figure out where my post went when it got featured; I actually tried to remember whether I wrote it or not! hehe

0 Replies

The Ministry of Defenses DRAFTED plans.......I doubt Blair will follow through because HE CAN'T.

Big Brother, GW, has England by the "you know whats" and would never publicly support a timetable.

I AM pro-withdrawal but I would not want to let it be known to the insurgency that we will be leaving in x days/months. By doing so, the insurgents will more than likely lay low until we leave, re-tool in the interum, then take back/over-run the Iraqi Govt.

NOT THAT I CARE IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. (altough it would be a giant slap in the face to our dead and wounded).

To re-state, my position has been that we should have never STAYED in Iraq once we stopped looking for WMD. But hat is not what is happening NOW unfortunately. So, we have to deal with the cards as they lay ont he table.

This admin will never IMO cut and run or set a timetable to do so.

0 Replies

Not too many days ago someone left a link on one of these threads where George Bush was questioning Clinton because he didn't have a timetable. So it must not be a timetable in and of itself that Bush is against, but just this timetable. I think he is just leary of having another "mission accomplished" thrown in his face.

0 Replies

I don't think we ever have any interest to withdraw completely from Iraq. It cost us a lot of money to have a ME military base to work from. We are not about to give it up - now, or ever. There will be problems in the ME for many decades and we established this central base to work from.

0 Replies

Oh, we're never going to leave Iraq.

You don't build a 2 billion dollar embassy that you intend to up and leave in a year. Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000725.html

U.K. Memo Cites Plans For Troop Reduction

By Glenn Frankel and Josh White
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 11, 2005; A01

LONDON, July 10 -- The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but said that no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.

The undated memo, which was reported in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."

While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable. President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date, citing concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.

The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."

Such debates contribute to contingency planning, according to U.S. officials, and there can be several different scenarios under consideration at the same time. A rapid reduction in troops would depend on the success of several political processes in Iraq and of the emerging Iraqi security forces.

While U.S. commanders have praised the development of the Iraqi army and police forces, training and equipping the units has taken longer than expected. None of the provinces in Iraq is solely protected by Iraqi forces, and significant decreases expected in U.S. troop strength have not materialized.

"At any given time, there are a number of plans, for all sorts of developments, good or bad," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman. Carpenter declined to comment specifically about the British memo because Pentagon officials had not seen it. "The U.S. leadership for some time has been on record stating that our drawdown and eventual withdrawal is based on a conditions-based strategy."

Many analysts consider the tenacity of the Iraqi insurgency to be the major impediment to troop withdrawals, although U.S. officials have heralded recent successes in quelling violence.

Part of the overall reduction, said the memo, would be a drop in total British forces by mid-2006 from 8,500 to around 3,000. The change, the memo added, could save Britain half of its current cost of around $1.7 billion per year.

"None of this, however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan," the memo cautioned. "There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way."

Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, said the British government had "made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed.

"No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi Security Forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies.

"This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios."

British forces have been assigned to four relatively peaceful provinces around the southern city of Basra, but 89 British troops have died since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The war has little support among the British public, and officials hope to pull forces out of the area as soon as is practical. Blair has insisted no troops will be withdrawn until Iraqi forces can take over.

British commanders hope to hand over control of two provinces to Iraqi forces by October 2005, according to the memo, and to hand over control of two more provinces by April 2006.

White reported from Washington.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

This can only be a good thing. The Arab world needs to see that the West were genuine in their desire to allow Iraq to run its own affairs.

This withdrawal has to be carried out carefully though, and a competent Iraqi force should be in place well beforehand.

Let's hope that it is not too long before all of the troops can withdraw.

The sooner the better but not a day before it is justified.

0 Replies

I never thought the Brits were much like the Spaniards.

0 Replies

One of the things that has to be realized is the fact that, just because someone is not an advocate of the withdrawl timetable, it does not necessarily mean that they are happy about a continued military effort.

I am one such person, who was against the Iraqi invasion from day one, but now that we're here, we're unfortunately here for the long haul. I'd be happy as a clam (if clams are happy?) if the war abruptly ended, and all loose ends were tied up, today.[/i] However, this does not seem to be a likely possibility, and therefore we cannot make plans on leaving just yet.

Besides which, if the rest of the world looks down upon us now, just imagine what they'd think of us if we left Iraq now in a shambles. I can see it now: "Pfft, Americans. They don't even clean up after themselves. Just look at what they did to Iraq!"

0 Replies

Since this thread hasn't been updated, it seems, here just another report

Quote:

MPs may get vote on troop withdrawal bill

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday July 22, 2005
The Guardian

MPs will get the right to vote on whether Britain keeps its troops in Iraq if they pass Clare Short's controversial private member's bill giving parliament new powers to declare war, according to an analysis by the House of Commons library.

The bill, which is attracting heavyweight backbench support from such figures as William Hague and Robin Cook, will lead to a battle between No 10 and backbench MPs when parliament returns in October.

Ms Short came third in the annual private members' bill ballot which gives the bill a good chance of becoming law. The second reading will be on October 21 and the bill will be in committee by Christmas.

The analysis by the Commons library - prepared for Nick Brown, the former Labour chief whip - says the effect of the new law would be more wide-ranging than just giving parliament a chance to vote before the UK goes to war. The definition of armed conflict will also cover peacekeeping and rapid response interventions by British troops.

More surprisingly, a retrospective clause - inserted to allow the prime minister to go to war in an emergency and then put a report before parliament to justify the action - would mean that MPs would have a chance to vote on whether troops should remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The report says: "Under this clause retrospective approval would have to be granted for the participation of British forces in armed conflicts that begun prior to the legislation coming into force."

It also warns of a potential loophole in the legislation. If Tony Blair lost a vote on keeping troops in Iraq, in theory he would have to withdraw them within 30 days. But the bill allows the prime minister to keep troops in a foreign country for an unspecified period as a precursor to withdrawal.

The report says that the bill is attracting considerable support, with 167 MPs backing the motion including Mr Hague, Mr Cook, the former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke, Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the influential Commons public administration committee, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, and Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish Nationalist party.

Tony Blair opposes the bill because it would restrict his ability to send troops on foreign missions at short notice. The chancellor, Gordon Brown, is more sympathetic.

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, wanted a vote on the last war and is on record as an opposition spokesman in 1994 as saying that the royal prerogative - the power used to declare wars - has no place in a modern western democracy.

Ms Short said yesterday: "I am delighted about the report, which shows that the bill will be more wide ranging than even I realised.

"If it is passed it will mean that the prime minister will have to present a clearly thought out, cogent case before committing British troops abroad."

Source

0 Replies

Re: Britian sets Timetable for withdrawl

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My god, a timetable for withdrawl.

If the Brits can do it, why can't we?

Let's hear all the bullsh*t answers to that question.

Cycloptichorn

My goodness it's tough to respond to such a butch challenge.

Of course there is no true indication that the Brits are doing it.

And if they are, why does it follow that we should follow?

0 Replies

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

One of the things that has to be realized is the fact that, just because someone is not an advocate of the withdrawl timetable, it does not necessarily mean that they are happy about a continued military effort.

I am one such person, who was against the Iraqi invasion from day one, but now that we're here, we're unfortunately here for the long haul. I'd be happy as a clam (if clams are happy?) if the war abruptly ended, and all loose ends were tied up, today.[/i] However, this does not seem to be a likely possibility, and therefore we cannot make plans on leaving just yet.

Besides which, if the rest of the world looks down upon us now, just imagine what they'd think of us if we left Iraq now in a shambles. I can see it now: "Pfft, Americans. They don't even clean up after themselves. Just look at what they did to Iraq!"

Far too reasonable for this forum.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:
One of the things that has to be realized is the fact that, just because someone is not an advocate of the withdrawl timetable, it does not necessarily mean that they are happy about a continued military effort.

I am one such person, who was against the Iraqi invasion from day one, but now that we're here, we're unfortunately here for the long haul. I'd be happy as a clam (if clams are happy?) if the war abruptly ended, and all loose ends were tied up, today.[/i] However, this does not seem to be a likely possibility, and therefore we cannot make plans on leaving just yet.

Besides which, if the rest of the world looks down upon us now, just imagine what they'd think of us if we left Iraq now in a shambles. I can see it now: "Pfft, Americans. They don't even clean up after themselves. Just look at what they did to Iraq!"

Far too reasonable for this forum.

I'm so sorry, Finn - in the future, i'll make an attempt at being more unreasonable and silly. Laughing

I bet i can pull that off.

0 Replies

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Francisco D'Anconia wrote:
One of the things that has to be realized is the fact that, just because someone is not an advocate of the withdrawl timetable, it does not necessarily mean that they are happy about a continued military effort.

I am one such person, who was against the Iraqi invasion from day one, but now that we're here, we're unfortunately here for the long haul. I'd be happy as a clam (if clams are happy?) if the war abruptly ended, and all loose ends were tied up, today.[/i] However, this does not seem to be a likely possibility, and therefore we cannot make plans on leaving just yet.

Besides which, if the rest of the world looks down upon us now, just imagine what they'd think of us if we left Iraq now in a shambles. I can see it now: "Pfft, Americans. They don't even clean up after themselves. Just look at what they did to Iraq!"

Far too reasonable for this forum.

I'm so sorry, Finn - in the future, i'll make an attempt at being more unreasonable and silly. I bet i can pull that off.

You best be, if you want to develop a following.

0 Replies

::looking around nervously::
er....right, well then...uh, ...
Europe sucks!!! They're all crappy and old world and stuff!! Plus in England the food is crap! And Eastern Europe is a whole bunch of friggin Commies... man that place sucks so much. Seriously. How dare they be all, 'yo, we're leaving,' and stuff!? They have no right to do what they want with their armed forces!! They're all commies, that's the problem. We should just take down all the damned commies!!

::still glancing around nervously::

(better?)
Very Happy

0 Replies

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

::looking around nervously::
er....right, well then...uh, ...
Europe sucks!!! They're all crappy and old world and stuff!! Plus in England the food is crap! And Eastern Europe is a whole bunch of friggin Commies... man that place sucks so much. Seriously. How dare they be all, 'yo, we're leaving,' and stuff!? They have no right to do what they want with their armed forces!! They're all commies, that's the problem. We should just take down all the damned commies!!

::still glancing around nervously::

(better?)

Frankie

You must have an identity crisis.

If you really want a following you need to tell us how much more enlightened Europe is that we rubes in the US.

0 Replies

Britian sets Timetable for withdrawl

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know