British troops in Iraq to be halved

British troops in Iraq to be halved

By George Jones, Political Editor
Last Updated: 8:24pm GMT 20/02/2007

Tony Blair is preparing to announce a major reduction in British troops in Iraq as a result of a successful operation to improve security in the southern city of Basra.

Downing Street indicated tonight that Mr Blair could make his promised statement this week on Britain's future strategy in Iraq, He will be in the Commons tomorrow for his weekly Prime Minister's questions session

Reports circulating in Whitehall tonight suggested that Britain's 7,000 contingent in Iraq could be cut to around 4,000 by the early summer.

Several battalions which had been due to go to Iraq in May during the next rotation of troops - replacing troops returning home - will stay in Britain.

more, full story here


hmm... i guess that this will keep Prince Harry home after all.

Those two words: Prince Harry.

flinch about sending royalty into the fray.

Maybe in previous days, but now when the royals have become media tidbits on the order of ms. spears haircut and the Iraq involvement is as deeply unpopular as it is I see this as their best chance to keep the princeling safe at home and to waltz around that as the reason for reducing their commitment.

Just heard. Not on website yet.
Blair will announce initial withdrawal of 1500 of their 7,000 troops.
David Gergen said "That cracking noise you hear is the coming apart of the British-American alliance."
Yesss!

edit for link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq

Still not up on web yet.

Somewhere, in the bowels of The White House, sphincters are tightening. The true price of their little adventure is experiencing inflation.

Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq.

The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons on Wednesday in which he is expected clarify the details.

Mr Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later.

Some 7,000 UK troops are currently serving in Iraq and about 1,500 are expected to return within weeks.

BBC political correspondent James Landale said: "We have been expecting an announcement for some time on this."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6380933.stm

please edit to add to your OP. :hi:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq;_ylt=Ak9yD8Ki69A7H6GR_uwRc.us0NUE

But Blair said Sunday that Washington had not put pressure on London to maintain its troop numbers. Britain hopes to cut several thousand of its 7,000-member force in the southern city of Basra by midyear.

As recently as late last month, Blair rejected opposition calls to withdrawal British troops by October, calling such a plan irresponsible.

"That would send the most disastrous signal to the people that we are fighting in Iraq. It's a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is actually deeply irresponsible," Blair said on Jan. 24 in the House of Commons.

Blair, who has said he will step down as prime minister by September after a decade in power, has seen his foreign-policy record overshadowed by his role as Bush's leading ally in the unpopular war.

Yeah, OK, Baghdad Bob.

The British troops left Basra and the Iraqi militias killed, made to forced to leave the city or forced into hiding anyone who opposed them.

They have been whittling down their forces steadily throughout the years. Now that they're down to close to nothing, people are starting to notice.

We had a coalition of the temporarily willing.

I wonder if this sleight of hands by Blair is part of that redeployment.

Elections are coming up, and Labour is trailing!

Who in their right mind would want their troops in Basra when Bu$h/Cheney press the button on Iran? Look at a map.

I cringe every time I hear the term. This was a unilateral invasion by the USA and we paid off anybody that came along. Now the Treasury is empty and the grand coalition is going home, except for us, of course.

lolololololololol

(Now confirmed)


On BBC World News tonight, British officials cited the recent pushes by Democrats in the U.S. Congress to pull troops out by the end of the year as the impetus for their decision to get out now.

The British are leaving! The British are leaving! :)

...is a facesaving move by Blair. Once he steps down in May, his successor will pull the plug a lot faster than that. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole lot out of Iraq by the end of this year.

I wish our guys/gals were that lucky. I wish a lot of things.

:hi:

I even saw it in Finland, (it ran every year) with subtitles for both the English and the Russian. It formed a part of my political life! Thanks for the memories of a warmer, happier time.

they're openin' up de baaar!

telephone operator--accent, mannerisms, and all.

I even have it on laserdisc--wanna come over and see it sometime?

the cheese stands alone, the cheese stands alone, hi hi the dario the cheese stands alone

Stinkin' up the place ...

n/t

Don't call 'em Muffins. :)

Crumpets are better!

uguu

There needs to a more pragmatic outlook on the situation. Does anyone here really believe that Bush is really going to cave in on the Iraq issue before he leaves office and does anyone here actually believe that the Democratic leadership would be willing to take the very risky political move of cutting off funding for the Iraq during a Presidential election year. I would submit that anyone who believes either of those scenarios is at best delusional, given these set of facts the announcement that the British plan to withdrawal or significantly decline there presence in Iraq just puts much more pressure on our military that is already overextended. This will make it more dangerous for our troops who will be staying and it will further isolate an already isolated and delusional Bush which makes it more dangerous for everyone. I hate to be the one to rain on the parade but any way you slice this story it is bad news.

:hi: Don't disagree with most of what you posted, but I'm sure it's good news to the UK troops that will be going home.

I understand that perspective as I have been deployed overseas in harms way and I know the that only thing that really mattered was coming home.

Most of the RW spinners make it sound like troops would rather be over there than at home.

(if he ever really isn't on vacation).

and our troops will be in a quagmire alone?

any other news flashes that you're coming across?

The United States sought on Tuesday to put a positive angle on its closest ally Britain's plan to pull its 7100 troops out of Iraq nearly four years after the war's start.

Under pressure domestically to show progress in the war and attacked in Congress for escalating US troop levels amid rising violence, the White House called the British withdrawal a positive sign after Prime Minister Tony Blair telephoned President George W. Bush to inform him of the move.

"President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad," said White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe.

"The president is grateful for the support of the British forces in the past and into the future. While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis," the spokesperson said.

more:http://iafrica.com/news/specialreport/iraq/633396.htm

as the Iraqis step up, the British will get the hell out and leave the U.S. to clean up it's own mess. :eyes: The day the Iraqis take control of their civil war without U.S. help is the day they'll be ice-skating in hell. The White House is trying to put a positive spin on this, like this was all planned and it's a sign that Bush's policies are working. :rofl: If anyone believes that, even anyone as stupid as a FReeper, they're totally insane. It's just Blair trying to save his own ass and get out of Dodge before Bush starts attacking Iran. He'd be run out of Great Britain on a rail if he got involved in an attack on Iran.

Bush's poodle broke the leash. :rofl:

The last withdrawal of the year will co-incide "accidentally" with Bliar stepping down from office.
When it all comes down to it, Blair knows he has aligned himself with a warmongering idiot and is desperate to add a positive spin to his profile. Perhaps we will be "treated" to blanket news coverage of him welcoming home the troops just before he gives his swan song speech to the Labour Party Conference. Not that he was ever anywhere near a coffin coming home - of course.

The damage limitation will be in full swing this year - distancing themselves from BushCo and stroking the democrats - their historical American alter ego's.

the only images I want to see of Blair are in a Parliamentary Committee being asked proper questions about the lies and deceit carried out to start the war and then invade a country that was of absolutely no danger to my country, or to me and mine or anyone else outside of its own borders. Followed by a mug shot and then pictures of him in the dock at Strasbourg being read the charges.

I won't get the latter of course - but I can hope beyond hope. Meanwhile Bliar will fuck off to the US on the book tour and speech circuit in Bush's last year in office (after that there'll be no big bucks to be made so he has to get in their quick, it is the bottom line after all), so have a nice time welcoming him to your shores, then he'll take the money and run back to Sedgefield, massage his local constituency office for a few days - then back to London while he awaits his obligatory mention in the Queens New Years Honours list and takes his seat in the House Of Lords - the very house he came into office seeking to seriously reduce and eventually do away with altogether.

There are no words for my contempt for that man and his lies that got young men killed. While his own son, of miliary service age was shunted off to Washington to work in some Republican Lapdogs Office.

I kid you not.

just omg.

working with all factions, clearing out the corrupt in police and other admin services etc. etc. You also have to ensure that your own forces are well policed and disciplined.

Admittedly the Brits have had to learn the hard way because of the godawful mess we made of Northern Ireland and other insurgencies.

I heard on the radio the Danes are heading for the hills too. No word on Poland yet.

Not one. They just regurgitate the spin: "It shows success."
Un. be. liev. able.

or is that only if the U.S. withdrew?

A troop withdrawal not being described as a cut 'n run??????

http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=51B00B94-C8A0-4161-BFE4-F97F9DD03DFA&t=m318&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&f=IDBOI&

Well good then. Let's have the master "decider" take a cue from his poodle and embark on a similar withdrawal plan for U.S. forces. That type of consistent approach would effectively negate the need for any "surge", wouldn't it? We're waiting, George & Dick -- hopefully this response to Blair's announcement isn't mere spinning past the graveyard in the face of a collapsing "coalition". FLASH! It's official, Denmark is also pulling out. Another sign of success no doubt!

Why did the Brits not redeploy their troops from Basra to Baghdad and Anbar?

Comparing themselves to Gary Cooper in High Noon, standing alone as all their allies abandon them. Expect a lot of anti-British frothing in the right-wing blogosphere.

Maybe bLiar does not want to see Prince Harry having to wear a "wig" and go blow up a few cars (and Iraqis).

But he's still a WAR CRIMINAL.

But our leadership is too caught up in pomp and circumstance.

Juan Cole: "This is a rout, there should be no mistake."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x264480

If the mission in Iraq is so important to Australia (reference John Howard's recent comments) and the UK (half their troops now leaving the country)than WHY are they reducing their troop levels? If its so important to them, then they need to just move those troops from Basra to Baghdad and help out. Its not as if the help is not needed. If John Howard has so much fire in his belly for victory in Iraq then why not throw a couple more shrimp on the barbie and help a good friend out. All these people talk about how important this whole thing is but the United States is the one bellying up to the bar with 98% of the manpower (99% of the deaths)and 99.8% of the money. Why is that? Howard doesn't like Barack Obama's ideas for Iraq then he needs to either pony up 10,000 more troops or shut his mouth. Blair talks about being a "partner" and "friend" with the U.S. but decides to pick up his toys and go home for dinner. I look at it like this. Picture yourself in a bar with a couple of loud mouth friends. All together your talking crap and telling stories and before you know it a fight starts. Your friends Brit and Den and Bruno finish up with their one guy and then stand around watch 3 guys kicking the tar out of you then get bored and slip out the back door. Before you know it, your bloody and broke because someone still had to pay the tab.
In short, I just don't understand how anyone in the * administration can look out to a group of reporters or into a camera and keep a straight face while telling them that the UK withdraw is "sign of our success in Iraq". What a load of crap!!!!

:shrug: ;)