Britain To Reduce Troops
The headlines are all trumpeting that Tony Blair has announced a British "withdrawal plan" for British troops in Iraq. Reading this report, however, says that there is an announced reduction, not a withdrawal - if specific conditions are met with possible future reductions as well. It is not a complete cut and run, at least not as it stands today. That is not to say that it is particularly great news. But Blair is specifically rejecting an irresponsible, precipitous withdrawal.
LONDON – Britain will withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq in coming months if local forces can secure the southern part of the country, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday.
"The actual reduction in forces will be from the present 7,100 — itself down from over 9,000 two years ago and 40,000 at the time of the conflict — to roughly 5,500," Blair told the House of Commons.
He told lawmakers that "increasingly our role will be support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly."
Blair said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had agreed to the plan.
Dependent on Iraqi capability Britain would draw down further, "possibly to below 5,000" once a base at Basra Palace is transferred to Iraqi control in late summer, Blair said.
"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis," Blair said.
There is, predictably, a firestorm of commentary on this in the blogosphere. It ranges from the predictable crowing from the left to somewhat unhappy from some on the right. But fair number of folks are not seeing this as all that bad news, just that it comes at a fairly awkward time, what with American troops increasing. It should be kept in mind that Basra has always been less of a problem than Baghdad.
By cfaller96, February 21, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Why can’t the US do this? If it’s not irresponsible or precipitous, and it’s based on conditions, then why can’t we make the same commitment?