PDA

View Full Version : Brit Papers: Bush and Blair to cut and run by Spring '07


Taco John
03-05-2006, 01:19 AM
UK, US to withdraw Iraq forces by early '07: papers
Sat Mar 4, 2006pm ET


LONDON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain are planning to pull all their troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2007, two British newspapers reported in their Sunday editions, quoting unnamed senior defense ministry sources.

The Sunday Telegraph said the planned pull-out followed an acceptance by the two governments that the presence of foreign troops in Iraq was now a large obstacle to securing peace.

"The British government is understood to be the driving force behind the withdrawal plan but all 24 coalition members are likely to welcome the move, given the growing international unpopularity of the war," the Telegraph said.

There are currently about 135,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines and about 8,500 British troops in Iraq. The full U.S.-led coalition numbers around 160,000. Italy, which has the fourth largest contingent in Iraq, has said it plans to pull out this year.



Britain's Sunday Mirror newspaper also reported on the planned withdrawal saying it would happen within 12 months.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said frequently in the past that foreign troops will be gradually withdrawn from Iraq once Iraqi security forces are capable of guaranteeing security for the 27 million population.

U.S. and British troops have trained around 230,000 Iraqis to take on roles in the police force and a slowly expanding Iraqi army, although both are currently incapable of securing the country on their own.

The U.S. military withdrew around 15,000 troops after Iraq had successful elections in December for its first full-term parliament since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Tensions in Iraq have soared over the past two weeks as fighting between the country's main Muslim sects has intensified. There is also an on-going two-year-old insurgency being waged by militants against the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, its security forces and foreign troops.

The recent sectarian violence has provoked fears that the country is on the brink of civil war, a scenario that could greatly complicate the role of foreign troops.

However, the Telegraph, quoting a defense official, said that if civil war were to break out, it would likely cause the withdrawal plan to be put off.

http://tinyurl.com/oc74y

Taco John
03-05-2006, 01:20 AM
Works for me. I still don't understand why we're there in the first place.

Ugly Duck
03-05-2006, 01:24 AM
LONDON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain are planning to pull all their troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2007
BushCo said we won't leave until complete victory is achieved. Its just coincidence that complete victory will happen in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.

Chiefs Express
03-05-2006, 06:37 AM
Unnamed sources strike again.

Yep, I'm convinced. I've seen enough!

Adept Havelock
03-05-2006, 10:41 AM
BushCo said we won't leave until complete victory is achieved. Its just coincidence that complete victory will happen in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.
:clap:

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2006, 11:44 AM
BushCo said we won't leave until complete victory is achieved. Its just coincidence that complete victory will happen in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.

You sound surprised by this fact. Presidents and politicians have a way of doing this....why we would be surprised is beyond me.

Remember the suddenly hawkish Bill Clinton, just before the 1996 and 1998 elections....:shrug:

Bowser
03-05-2006, 12:36 PM
Caught a blurb on CNN stating the White House is emphatically denying these reports. Take that for what it's worth.

Nightwish
03-05-2006, 01:05 PM
Now, Taco, your thread title is terribly misleading. You know perfectly well that it's only "cut and run" if it is proposed by a Democrat. If it is proposed by a Republican or a Bush ally, it is called "strategic redeployment."

patteeu
03-05-2006, 01:28 PM
Now, Taco, your thread title is terribly misleading. You know perfectly well that it's only "cut and run" if it is proposed by a Democrat. If it is proposed by a Republican or a Bush ally, it is called "strategic redeployment."

I think there could be such a thing as a "strategic redeployment" but if this story is accurate and if the result is anything like the Murtha proposal or the Sheehan proposal, "cut and run" is accurate even if the Dick Cheney himself proposes it.

Ugly Duck
03-05-2006, 01:41 PM
You sound surprised by this fact. Presidents and politicians have a way of doing this....why we would be surprised is beyond me.Heck, I ain't surprised. I've been predicting since way back that the cabal would announce that we are "in the process of withdrawing" some troops in the runnup to the congressional elections. Excellent way to diffuse the campaign-time Dem cracks on the Quagmire - "Quit whinning, lefties! We've already announced that we're pulling back due to successful progress on the ground, geesh!" You'll also see 'em declare "complete victory" just before the 2008 presidential campaign. When Dems mention phased withdrawl, it is unpatriotic traitorous encouragement to the enemy. Neocons will mention phased withdrawl amazingly coincident with campaign seasons, and it will be billed as shining successful patriotic victory.

patteeu
03-05-2006, 02:03 PM
Heck, I ain't surprised. I've been predicting since way back that the cabal would announce that we are "in the process of withdrawing" some troops in the runnup to the congressional elections. Excellent way to diffuse the campaign-time Dem cracks on the Quagmire - "Quit whinning, lefties! We've already announced that we're pulling back due to successful progress on the ground, geesh!" You'll also see 'em declare "complete victory" just before the 2008 presidential campaign. When Dems mention phased withdrawl, it is unpatriotic traitorous encouragement to the enemy. Neocons will mention phased withdrawl amazingly coincident with campaign seasons, and it will be billed as shining successful patriotic victory.

I've been predicting it too, but not a complete withdrawal and 2007 doesn't make sense in terms of US election politics.

Amnorix
03-06-2006, 07:55 AM
I've been predicting it too, but not a complete withdrawal and 2007 doesn't make sense in terms of US election politics.

err....well certainly no later than early spring of 2008. If they don't get out early enough, it will be seen as political grandstanding. Also, Democrats will use it to bash Republicans even in the primaries, most likely, to inflict some wounds on the enemy even before there's a full engagement.

I mean, if we withdraw in, say, June 2008, then how do you think voters will react to the Republican nominee?

Also, keep in mind that you don't have 130,000 guys just jump on a plane and fly home. The logistics of withdrawal and turnover are so profound as to require alot of advanced planning and coordination.

patteeu
03-06-2006, 08:59 AM
err....well certainly no later than early spring of 2008. If they don't get out early enough, it will be seen as political grandstanding. Also, Democrats will use it to bash Republicans even in the primaries, most likely, to inflict some wounds on the enemy even before there's a full engagement.

I mean, if we withdraw in, say, June 2008, then how do you think voters will react to the Republican nominee?

Also, keep in mind that you don't have 130,000 guys just jump on a plane and fly home. The logistics of withdrawal and turnover are so profound as to require alot of advanced planning and coordination.

Yes, you're probably right. I still don't think the complete withdrawal will happen though. I do think there's a good chance of some drawdown by the end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. In fact, if it is possible, I would think we'll bring some troops home before the 2006 elections. I certainly could be wrong about all of this, but we've been hearing stories about complete withdrawals for a couple of years now. Robert Novak was writing (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2004/09/20/13064.html) about administration sourced rumors of complete withdrawal scheduled for 2005 during the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections. Of course, now that it hasn't happened, some are suggesting (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23830/) that Novak was a tool (probably an unwitting one) of Bush election propaganda efforts so who knows.