PDA

View Full Version : Britain to Pull Troops from Iraq



DLR'sCock
09-25-2005, 11:54 PM
Britain to Pull Troops from Iraq as Blair Says 'Don't Force Me Out'
By Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
The Observer UK

Sunday 25 September 2005

Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May. Plan follows pressure for exit strategy.
British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

Defiant PM Says: I'll Face Down Iraq Protesters
By Andy McSmith, Raymond Whitaker and Francis Elliott
The Independent UK

Sunday 25 September 2005

War critics dismissed as 'urban intellectuals'. Most Britons want troops out, poll shows.
Tony Blair will signal this week that Labour should abandon "urban intellectuals" who deserted it over the Iraq war. As the party's conference begins in Brighton today he is determined to face down growing pressure for a withdrawal of British troops.

He believes Labour will lose if it seeks to win back middle-class voters who protested against the war at the last election and can rely instead on its heartland to remain in power.

Mr Blair's hardline stance comes as a poll released last night showed that a majority of Britons wanted UK troops to pull out. Senior military, diplomatic and intelligence figures added their voices to the protest last night.

The Prime Minister's determination to ignore the issue was made clear yesterday when party managers stifled a proposed debate on Iraq.

Mr Blair will make only a passing reference to the subject in his main conference speech on Tuesday, most of which will be about the importance of improving choice in health and education.

His strategy was made clear by one of his ministers last week who said that " urban intellectuals" accounted for just 4 per cent of the vote. Liam Byrne singled out Cambridge - lost to the Liberal Democrats on an anti-war vote - as he argued that Labour must stick to economic issues. "If we win back Cambridge but lose seats such as Crawley, we will be out of power."

The spectre of the conflict loomed over the eve of the gathering, however, as senior military and diplomatic figures added their voices to calls for an exit strategy.

The former top mandarin at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Michael Quinlan, told The Independent on Sunday: "Perhaps we shall soon be - if we are not already - doing more harm by staying as perceived occupiers than by departing."

Meanwhile a YouGov poll for Five News last night showed that 57 per cent of those asked said yes to the question "should British troops pull out of Iraq?" while 27 per cent said no.

Labour's conference managers ruled that there should be no discussion of a resolution backed by two dozen constituency parties, which praised the late Robin Cook's commitment to "a world order governed by rules" - fearing that it would be used as an opening to attack the decision to go to war with Iraq without full UN backing. Instead of a debate, the conference will hear speeches in praise of Cook and of James Callaghan and Mo Mowlam, who also died this year, led by the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.

Gordon Brown last night appeared to accept Mr Blair's terms for an " orderly transition" of power. In a newspaper interview, he said: " The programme of reform and modernisation will continue when Tony steps down. "

However, a less rosy picture of the relationship was provided in a new book on John Prescott. When the Deputy Prime Minister sought to persuade Mr Brown to return to help Mr Blair win a third term this year, the Chancellor is said to have snapped: "He's ratted on me and he will rat on you."

-------

Phil theStalker
09-26-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Britain to Pull Troops from Iraq as Blair Says 'Don't Force Me Out'
By Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
The Observer UK

Sunday 25 September 2005

Defence Secretary confident withdrawal will start in May.
Yeh, I read this yesterday. I didn't think of putting it up as a link. Thanks.

What will the American people do when they are in Iraq alone and building the U.S.'s LARGEST embassy in the world?

The British are leaving and THEY'RE NOT building their largest UK embassy in the world in Iraq.

If Iraq was all about WMD's then WHERE DID THE PLANS FOR THE U.S's LARGEST EMBASSY COME FROM OVERNIGHT????

THE LARGEST U.S. EMABSSY IN THE WORLD FOR A SHIT HOLE LIKE IRAQ. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?

IT SEEMS THERE WAS MORE PLANNING HERE FOR ANY EXCUSE TO ILLEGALLY INVADE AND TAKE OVER THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF IRAQ AND BUILD THE LARGEST U.S. BASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR FUTURE U.S. MILITARY WARFARE OPERATIONS AGAINST IRAN AND OTHERS.

It's a big plan these neocons have and I don't see the weak uninformed American people stopping it at the ballot box with their elected globalist officials. The only thing I see stopping it is if a Middle Eastern plot assassinates our President who is the figure head waging this war for reasons the American people don't know about, because the American people have been lied to from that President's lips that this war is about 9/11.

Nope.

The NEXT war will be about 9/11 and it will be fought right inside America in the streets.


:spank:

Cathedral
09-26-2005, 09:20 AM
I have heard from the mouths of muslims that Iraq is the Islamic Toilet of the muslim world.
They don't respect Iraqi's any more than we respect the common cockroach which i found surprising.

Of course this is the opinion of just 4 Morrocans.

But if the insurgents were smart they would take this info and stand down so they can wait until all the troops are gone and then take over the country with little resistance.
it isn't as though the Iraqi's are standing up for their country the way i expected them too.
And that makes me ask, Who wants Iraq to be free more, President Bush or the Iraqi's themselves?

I just haven't seen them take advantage of the opportunity and that pisses on the graves of those who have died for the cause.

It's really pissing me off...

Phil theStalker
09-26-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
I just haven't seen them take advantage of the opportunity and that pisses on the graves of those who have died for the cause.
"Boots on the ground" are what holds land. What is U.S. (the best in the world) boot camp these days, 12 WEEKS?

You are absolutley right, Cathedral.

From 2003 to 2005 (now nearly 2006) has been plenty of time for patriotic Iraqis who want freedom and a form of democratic rule to have stepped into those "BOOTS."

IF THERE WERE ANY.

It's time to pull out of a failed mission, like Vietnam, and cut our NATION'S loses, damn the corporations, they've made billions already while the American people are picking their asses to get the money to buy gasoline to get on with their "happy" lives.

If Americans were truly FREE they'd be able to get on with their lives, but they are NOT free when their "democratic republic" has been politically overthrown with "duly elected" authoritarian dictators just like in Germany before WWII.

And we've got to stop taking all of these small plane crashes of congressmen AND THEIR FAMILIES who are dissidents of the two party authoritarin dictatorship, that has been ruling America from the White House and not THROUGH congress, since the JFK assassination coup.

Hitler had his one night of murder to seize the political power of a great nation exposed and he even boasted about it's need to be done in a speech he made publicly, but these plane crashes are getting way too out of hand and frequent not to be a warning.

Oh yeh, war is coming alrighty.

But not just to the Middle East...y'know wot I mean?;)


:spank:

Phil theStalker
09-26-2005, 09:52 AM
Unh, what are they going to do with the largest embassy in the world for the U.S.A., protect it's WORLD'S LARGEST personel, defend it, and if it's attacked do we go back and send in more troops again to defend the WORLD'S LARGEST EMBASSY that was attacked, another PRETEXT, another LIE, for another WAR in Iraq and Iraq's neighbors?

Y'know, I mean WHAT?


:spank: