Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months

BRITAIN and America are planning a phased withdrawal of their forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad after this week’s elections. In a move that has caused alarm in the outgoing Iraqi administration, American and British officials have made clear that they regard the end of Iraq’s two-and-a-half-year transitional period as the green light to begin withdrawing some of their combined force of around 170,000 troops as early as March.

A senior Western diplomat in Baghdad said yesterday: “One of the first things we will talk about (with the new Iraqi government) is the phased transfer of security, particularly in cities and provinces. It will happen progressively over the next year.” America has more than 160,000 troops in central and northern Iraq, and Britain about 8,000 based in four southern provinces. Contingency plans are already in place for the small British contingents in the two provinces of Dhiqar and Muthana to go as early as the spring.

The third to go will be Misan province, a far more restive region. A senior British officer
said that Iraqi security forces might be able to “keep a lid on the violence” by the end of this year. The Americans have increased their troop levels to help to bolster security for the elections on Thursday. But they are planning to pull out 30,000 by the new year and may reduce their presence below 100,000 in the coming months. US forces have already handed over security in Najaf and Karbala provinces and in city centres such as Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town.

The moves appear to run contrary to statements by President Bush and John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who insist that coalition forces will not “cut and run” and will stay until the mission in Iraq is complete. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Times yesterday that a hasty exit risked plunging the country into a new bout of violence. “Those who advocate an early withdrawal do not know what is at stake. The huge investment in blood and money sacrificed by the US could be squandered. “There would be regional interventions by neighbouring countries and others. The fate of this country and the whole region could be endangered,” he said. The move to hand over security to the 225,000 Iraqi soldiers and police who have now been trained for active duty comes in the face of mounting public pressure in both Britain and the US to disengage from Iraq, amid the rising death toll and spiralling costs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1922836,00.html

I don't care if it helps the Repukes by next fall's elections - we gotta get outa there...

they're doing it strictly for the election; after the election all bets are off

I agree with your sentiment, but...

How many times have we been promised troop reductions since this quagmire began? And how many of those actually panned out?

Maybe it'll be different this time, with the midterms coming up, but I'm not holding my breath. :(

send 5000.

What about those fourteen military installations that were build to the tune of billions of U.S. dollars. Who can see the US walking away from them?

On 23 March 2004 it was reported that "U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years.... The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006.. the US plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk... enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul..."

By May 2005 the Washington Post reported that plans called for consolidating American troops in Iraq into four large air bases: Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. Eventually, US units would be concentrated at these four fortified strategic hubs, from which they could provide logistical support and emergency combat assistance. Each base would support a brigade combat team, along with aviation and other support personnel.

More.....

for the elections.

That says a whole lot to me...

I don't see anything remotely permanent in Iraq's near future, except for 14 or so US military bases .

US will leave Iraq either with dignity or like a whip dog with tail between the legs.

Dont matter how long it take, there will always be resistance.
If you consider Saddam a threat. JOB DONE
What are you staying for?

Taking over a country .... gee talk to the Roman Empire, The British Empire, The French, The Dutch
Woh woh woh they got lots of history to share.

Gee some idiots done even know their history.
What the hell do you need a president who read MY PET GOAT

:kick:

most recent Iraq speech - either the Times is wrong or Bush is lying. But in his speech he also was still tying Iraq to 9/11 (when, wonder of wonders, a reporter actually asked him why he kept doing that) , saying Saddam refused inspections, and claiming that he would still make the same decision to invade Iraq. So there are already plenty of lies on Bush's side of the discrepancy between the Times article and his most recent speech.

Let's hope the Times is right, because Bush NEVER tells the truth except accidentally.

See for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1983014
thread title (12/13 LBN): London Times: Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months (not what Bush said!)

I enjoyed reading the take on this at the Mahablog, which contrasted the very clear statement in the London Times with Bush's several inconsistent statements in his speech on Iraq today. Here is the Mahablog entry on this:
http://www.mahablog.com/2005/12/12/cut-and-run

And here is the full text of Bush's speech today on Iraq:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-bush-text,0,7270373.story?coll=ny-world-big-pix

What Bush said today was NOT consistent with the London Times statement. For example:



As is pointed out in the Mahablog, what WAS very clear in Bush's Iraq speech today is that he is STILL laboring to link the Iraq war with the 9/11 attacks. For example:



In the Q & A session, Bush was actually asked a direct question about his repeated and continuing attempts to tie Iraq to 9/11. Wonder of wonders! The Mahablog excerpts the juiciest part:



I don't have the stomach to try to count the shear number of blatant lies in this incoherent Bush spew on the general subject of "Iraq...9/11...Victory...tough decision...Saddam bad...9/11...Saddam refused inspections...I'm such a tough leader...Victory...."

The London Times article sounds rather more coherent and well-informed that Bush. If they are right, then withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will begin early next year, perhaps in March.

The other point is that Bush is lying as fast and as often as he can and saying "victory" so often he might as well just write it on his forehead and shorten his speeches by at least half. And he is STILL tying 9/11 to Iraq and STILL claiming Saddam Hussein did not allow weapon inspections and that the "whole world" believed he had WMDs.

Let's hope the London Times is right.

troops will be withdrawn when it's most advantageous for boosting poll numbers for the 2006 mid-term (s)elections and provide sufficent distraction from other issues such as the republican culture of corruption scandals....

on edit....

please note this quote: The war on terror will take many turns, and the enemy must be defeated on every battlefield, from the streets of Western cities, to the mountains of Afghanistan, to the tribal regions of Pakistan, to the islands of Southeast Asia and to the Horn of Africa

he's laying out the "plan" for the next set of invasions.

most people are focused on one "war" - Iraq. but, as bush* has said many times - Iraq is just ONE PIECE in the war. What is not being asked is where he will invade NEXT.

This needs to be brought up in a national debate. What is bush*'s overall plan for his war on terror? Hop-scotch and leapfrog around the globe to invade even more countries? What's his plan for that? Is it the same crappy plan as with Iraq - invade, land on a ship, declare mission accomplished and then screw it up? Are we going to "go it alone"? How reliable will the intelligence info be? How many troops? Will they be sufficiently equipped? How much money will Halliburton get out of it? Is a military approach to the 'war on terror' the right one in all instances?

wants to send troops somewhere else. I think Iran and possibly Syria are more likely than any of the sites on his list. In fact, when he talks about "the streets of western cities," what i think of is their watching for an enabling act to launch martial law - though doubtless they would call it something Orwellian like, say, "Operation Safe America." And if a choice enabling event doesn't come along - they did make good use of the hurricanes, but they wanted more than they got - then I do anticipate another domestic attack staged or abetted by the WH/Pentagon leadership. Just as 9/11 was.

from the streets of Western cities ..."?

I thought his big plan was to keep from having to fight ~them~ here? Now he's planning on it? Well, surprise_surprise_surprise! I suppose he also has a plan for telling ~them~ apart from the innocent average citizen. Nah, I didn't think so!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1982993
thread title (12/13 LBN): US, Britain plan phased Iraq pullout after polls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1982516
thread title: Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1981726
thread title: Bush would go into Iraq again (knowing what he knows today)

he doesn't appear to be in the loop
he is out of sync on torture, NO, terrorist/insurgent, WMD.... etc.

As tweety pointed out last night this administration has never said the US will leave Iraq. He said it appears the plan is to stay in Iraq for years.

these troops were already going to be rotated home
this not a new troop withdrawal

The goose that lays golden eggs for the super-rich robber barons.

They will not give it up easily. The war was launched entirely for corporate profits and it will go on as long as We The People allow the robber barons to steal from us and murder our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.

and those that believe otherwise are fools. cute couple... :puke:

...that's about it. This will be accompanied by increased American air attack operations to compensate for a diastrous strategy. Mostly, it will be characterized by increased bloodshed and indiscriminate killing. Death squads will run rampant, operated by the US, the new dictatorship we are creating, and other interested parties like Iran and Israel.

LONDON (AFP) - The United States and Britain are planning a phased withdrawal of their military forces from Iraq as soon as a permanent government is installed in Baghdad, the Times newspaper reported.

"One of the first things we will talk about (with the new Iraqi government) is the phased transfer of security, particularly in cities and provinces," it quoted a senior Western diplomat in Baghdad as saying.

The Times said "contingency plans" were in place for British units in Dhiqar and Muthana provinces to go as early as spring 2006, followed by those in the most restive province of Misan.

The United States is meanwhile "planning to pull out 30,000 (troops) by the new year" and reduce their presence to below 100,000 personnel "in the coming months," it said, without giving a source.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051213/pl_afp/iraqvotebritainuswithdrawal_051213062506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1983014
thread title (12/13 LBN): London Times: Iraq troop pull-out to begin in months (not what Bush said!)

he never cleaned up his alcohol problem... he's a born quitter. of course he's cutting and running. it's the only thing the wiped-out washed-up white-knuckle dry-drunk can do. and nobody's going to bail him out this time... his so-called crony friends will never take the rap for a man who can't be trusted to keep his word.

we're going to pull out to the levels we were at before the build up for the elections. Nothing is changing.

Oh yea, bush is not a racist.

:puke: