Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Short little blurb, but...

Tony Blair to set UK troop pullout timetable for Iraq: BBC


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce on Wednesday a timetable for the withdrawal of U.K. troops from Iraq, according to a media report late Tuesday. Blair will make the announcement in the House of Commons, where he is expected clarify the details of the pullout, the BBC reported on its Web site. According to the report, Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks, and that more will follow later. Around 7,000 U.K. troops are currently serving in Iraq, the BBC said.

Interesting. It seems that the U.K. is doing what, I think, many in the US want, or think is appropriate.
Thoughts? Comments?

EDIT:
Found a longer artical in USA Today online....

Great Britain to begin pulling troops from Iraq

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, center, shown with British military personnel in England in January. Blair plans to announce a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, center, shown with British military personnel in England in January. Blair plans to announce a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.
From staff and wire reports
LONDON — Great Britain has told the United States it will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within weeks, Bush administration officials confirmed Tuesday.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke by telephone earlier today about the withdrawal, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe confirmed this afternoon.

ON DEADLINE: Latest developments

"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 United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq," Johndroe said.

"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," he added.

That sentiment was echoed by White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It's a success. It's not a failure, and it's certainly not an abandonment," Snow said of the plans.

"They're consolidating facilities in Basra and transferring some to Iraqi control. There's no diminution of combat capabilities. It enhances the flexibility for embedding and training the Iraqi army and police," Snow said.

Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported. Sky News, a British satellite news channel, reported the withdrawal would begin in April.

Downing Street would neither confirm nor deny the report, which began emerging late in the night in British newspapers.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as Bush implements a surge of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

But Blair said Sunday that Washington had not put pressure on London to maintain its troop numbers. The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Britain currently has about 7,100 soldiers there.

Blair has been with Bush from the beginning on the invasion of Iraq and has stood by the U.S. president as support for the war effort as slipped in public opinion in Great Britain and the United States. He said last month that he would report to lawmakers on his future strategy in Iraq following the completion of Operation Sinbad, a joint British and Iraqi mission targeting police corruption and militia influence in the southern city of Basra.

On Sunday, Blair told the BBC that the operation was completed.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in January that Operation Sinbad offered the prospect of a "turning point for Iraq, hopefully in the near future."

Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is likely to succeed Blair by September, has said he hoped several thousand British soldiers would be withdrawn by December.

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.

Not surprising. With Blair resigning as PM, the troops weren't going to be their much longer anyway. No one in the UK supports the civil war in Iraq anyway.

After Blair resigns, Bush will lose his only ally

Bush's credibility looks like a seive already.

Maybe he'll get the idea and start pulling US troops out. Either that or he'll call for more troops to make up for it.

You think he's going to change his mind after pushing this new policy?

I think not.

Troo dat. He's so fcuking stubborn.



Then again, we could wait a couple months and he'll say he wanted to pull out all along.

think this might have something to do with Prince Harry being deployed to Iraq?

UK troop reduction a welcome catalyst, says Iraqi president


Michael Howard in Baghdad
Wednesday February 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited




"The Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, today told the Guardian that Tony Blair's statement on phased troop withdrawal in the southern city of Basra was "a welcome catalyst for Iraqi security forces in the south and elsewhere to stand on their own feet".
Mr Talabani said Mr Blair's announcement to the Commons "had not come as a surprise to anyone".

His comments came as Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, welcomed news of the troop reduction.

The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2018162,00.html

The troops are leaving because the plan is working: in the areas that they are leaving the Iraqi's are ready to assume control.


And when our troops pull-back and support (as the Brits will now do) at the end of this year or the begining of next year, you can jump up and down and say that Bush "caved in to pressure" or whatever, but you'd be wrong.

He's stated that this was going to happen for quite a while, nobody believed that it would.

History, (and the Iraqi people) will vindicate him.

cool

Originally posted by sithsaber408
UK troop reduction a welcome catalyst, says Iraqi president


Michael Howard in Baghdad
Wednesday February 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited




"The Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, today told the Guardian that Tony Blair's statement on phased troop withdrawal in the southern city of Basra was "a welcome catalyst for Iraqi security forces in the south and elsewhere to stand on their own feet".
Mr Talabani said Mr Blair's announcement to the Commons "had not come as a surprise to anyone".

His comments came as Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, welcomed news of the troop reduction.

The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2018162,00.html

The troops are leaving because the plan is working: in the areas that they are leaving the Iraqi's are ready to assume control.


And when our troops pull-back and support (as the Brits will now do) at the end of this year or the begining of next year, you can jump up and down and say that Bush "caved in to pressure" or whatever, but you'd be wrong.

He's stated that this was going to happen for quite a while, nobody believed that it would.

History, (and the Iraqi people) will vindicate him.
Do you work for FOX news? or the Bush administration. What type of politician says "history will vindicate me!" and then enacts bad policies.

Bush didn't say it, I did.

And the people of Iraq that thank the coalation now.

Says who?
Don't merely read the news...
All of the Iraqi made documentarys I have seen say the opposite.

Sometimes you solid "Lefties" crack me up... The initial plan in the war was to remove troops as areas became stable and Iraqi forces became able to hold their own. So what's the problem with Britain withdrawing 1500 troops out of a regain deemed "stable"?

Who said there's a problem with Britain pulling their troops out?

Originally posted by Marxman
Who said there's a problem with Britain pulling their troops out?

My wording was bad, meant this is seen as a negative, especially a negative towards Bush.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sometimes you solid "Lefties" crack me up... The initial plan in the war was to remove troops as areas became stable and Iraqi forces became able to hold their own. So what's the problem with Britain withdrawing 1500 troops out of a regain deemed "stable"?

Wait. Lets think for a minute "righty" despite how difficult that may seem.

You're telling my Blair says "Iraq is so stable we can pull troops out" While Bush says Iraq is so unstable we need 20,000 more troops and scholars say this is a civil war.

If the region was deemed stable, why don't they move to an unstable region? Because the US forces are going to be going there so thats all and good now?

Bullshit.

Iraq is not stable and this is a pullout. If this wasn't a pullout, troops would be redeployed to an area of Iraq that supposedly needs them and 20,000 more of my countrymen.

Originally posted by Robtard
My wording was bad, meant this is seen as a negative, especially a negative towards Bush.

The hate Bush people will find any reason to hate Bush.

Troops go in... "we hate Bush"
Troops go out..."we hate Bush"

Or people who can actually analyze policy can look at this and see it for what it is without any sort of childish "i hate ____" policy.

Originally posted by Alliance
Or people who can actually analyze policy can look at this and see it for what it is without any sort of childish "i hate ____" policy.

So where are these people?

Originally posted by Alliance
Wait. Lets think for a minute "righty" despite how difficult that may seem.

You're telling my Blair says "Iraq is so stable we can pull troops out" While Bush says Iraq is so unstable we need 20,000 more troops and scholars say this is a civil war.

If the region was deemed stable, why don't they move to an unstable region? Because the US forces are going to be going there so thats all and good now?

Bullshit.

Iraq is not stable and this is a pullout. If this wasn't a pullout, troops would be redeployed to an area of Iraq that supposedly needs them and 20,000 more of my countrymen.

First of all, I have never voted for a Republican, so that should give you a hint to my political leanings... (it isn't Republican) Also, how grown-up of you to resort to an ad-hominem attack simply because I disagree with your views.

Not Iraq is stable across the board, the area where those certain troops are (Basra) is stable and has seen little action comparably speaking. And I agree with you that those troops should be redeployed instead of decommissioned, but that's Britain for you and in reality, they're playing a MUCH smaller role, 7,000 of their troops compared to how many of ours?

I'm not arguing that there aren't political reasons for this too as they're certainly always are; but the fact remains, the plan from day one, was to pull out and hand control over to the Iraqi forces as regions became stable.

Last I heard, Uk won't pull out til US does, which will most likely be never.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Last I heard, Uk won't pull out til US does, which will most likely be never. Well apparently that is no longer true

Wait, the UK has been in Iraq?

Originally posted by Barker
Wait, the UK has been in Iraq?

Yeh their pulling out after finding out they contracted infections

Originally posted by Robtard
Sometimes you solid "Lefties" crack me up... The initial plan in the war was to remove troops as areas became stable and Iraqi forces became able to hold their own. So what's the problem with Britain withdrawing 1500 troops out of a regain deemed "stable"? Originally posted by Robtard


Not Iraq is stable across the board, the area where those certain troops are (Basra) is stable and has seen little action comparably speaking. And I agree with you that those troops should be redeployed instead of decommissioned, but that's Britain for you and in reality, they're playing a MUCH smaller role, 7,000 of their troops compared to how many of ours?

I'm not arguing that there aren't political reasons for this too as they're certainly always are; but the fact remains, the plan from day one, was to pull out and hand control over to the Iraqi forces as regions became stable.

Well said.



.Originally posted by Alliance



Iraq is not stable and this is a pullout. If this wasn't a pullout, troops would be redeployed to an area of Iraq that supposedly needs them and 20,000 more of my countrymen.


And I would venture that those Brits (who've been there close to 4 years) want to go home now that they've secured their area and handed over power to Iraqi's.


20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad.

And as it's been said, "As baghdad goes, so goes Iraq."

The tide is slowly turning.

The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see.

Honestly, I wouldn't hold my breath for an solid "win", especially in that short of a time-frame. A few stable regions in less hostile areas is a long way from a victory.

Agreed.

But by summers end I believe we'll see a much safer Baghdad, one that's on its way to being turned over to Iraqi's.

I believe that the troop surge is a good move, and that a full 6 month onslaught (from Mar.- end of Aug.) will show a significant drop in insurgent efficiency.




And don't let the polls fool you, it depends where you go.

In Northern California, where I am... it's alot more than 30% approving of Bush and the war and 10% approving of the surge.

Bush is still supported 6/10 and the surge is at about a 50/50 right now.

I think there will not be any progress until Bush is out of office.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think there will not be any progress until Bush is out of office. Seconded

Yes, because the military action on the ground is better or worse based on Bush, not the generals and commanders giving the orders for the missions.

The entire military strategy is not working at all..
There either needs to be a major policy and ideal change. The straightforward attackin and clear military goal strategy is not working at all, this is not the correct type of warfare...
or we need to pull out all together.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
The entire military strategy is not working at all..
There either needs to be a major policy and ideal change. The straightforward attackin and clear military goal strategy is not working at all, this is not the correct type of warfare...
or we need to pull out all together.

Not the correct type of warfare, haha.

Insurgents are being trained by Iran and being given weapons from Iran (just like Iran did for Hezbollah in Lebanon.)

These aren't street thugs with guns and religious conviction alone, it's more.

We cannot "attack" the problem, so how do you develop a strategy to overcome the problem when it's changing due to the face of your enemy changing per say and being reinforced from outside forces (Iran.)

Part of the "surge" is a change in tactics to a more aggressive one. Will it help and is it enough? We'll just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Robtard
First of all, I have never voted for a Republican, so that should give you a hint to my political leanings... (it isn't Republican) Also, how grown-up of you to resort to an ad-hominem attack simply because I disagree with your views.

I didn't say you we're a Republican, I called you a "righty". No different than you saying "lefty" So if you really got a problem with it, examine your own actions first.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not Iraq is stable across the board, the area where those certain troops are (Basra) is stable and has seen little action comparably speaking. And I agree with you that those troops should be redeployed instead of decommissioned, but that's Britain for you and in reality, they're playing a MUCH smaller role, 7,000 of their troops compared to how many of ours?

I'm not arguing that there aren't political reasons for this too as they're certainly always are; but the fact remains, the plan from day one, was to pull out and hand control over to the Iraqi forces as regions became stable.

Well the original plans have been useless for a while. Redeployment makes more sense, but its not the option being pursued. That to me says pullout. Especially because he appears to want to implement at least something resembling a timetable.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And I would venture that those Brits (who've been there close to 4 years) want to go home now that they've secured their area and handed over power to Iraqi's.

Hah. My friends want to go home too. So what? There has been no "transition of power" the Iraqi government is still corrupt and can't get anything done.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad.

Tell that to people who have served 3 tours of duty or had theirs extended from 9 to 12 months, or even longer. "fresh" I think the apple I'm eating know more about the state of our troops than you. The Brits have had 7,000 troops there over four years. We've had 132,000. Of course these are down from the initial invasion numbers, but are troops are nowhere effing near fresh.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And as it's been said, "As baghdad goes, so goes Iraq."

So. Its been said panda's wear panties. I don't really find useless rhetoric appropriate when were at war and tens of thousands of people are dying each month.

In Bagdad you find your father out ton the street sitting in a pool of his own blood with holes drilled in his legs. Or see your brother being pinned down beheaded with a knife that problem more suited lengthwise for peeling apples. You see your sister split in half form a carbomb still clinging to her schoolbooks. You see troops with blood running out of their ears with their faces melted off from IEDs.

Yes. Stupid comments like yours straight from Tony Snow's mouth are exactly what we need.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The tide is slowly turning.

See above. Note the drastic increase in violence in the past year. If anything, the tide is turning against us.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see.

Just like we've heard that the current "strategy" has been working for the last four years?

And again, you know crap. Even our own command said it will take a year or so to know if it really is working. And this isn't the command that said this "new" "strategy" sucked.

Then my question, are we just going to stay in Iraq forever? Because we're going to leave sooner or later, and these tensions can just as easily erupt again with a few key leaders and mosques destroyed.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, because the military action on the ground is better or worse based on Bush, not the generals and commanders giving the orders for the missions.

Wait...did Bush start this war or did the US armed services. Thats what I thought.

Bush is telling them to go and "fix" an impossible situation. "Mission accomplished" is just a sign of how effing little he knows about war.

As far as Bush is concerned, the mission has been accomplished. Now he can drag out the war and hand out contracts to his buddies, the rich military corporations making a killing (literally) off the war.

Originally posted by Alliance
I didn't say you we're a Republican, I called you a "righty". No different than you saying "lefty" So if you really got a problem with it, examine your own actions first.


Well the original plans have been useless for a while. Redeployment makes more sense, but its not the option being pursued. That to me says pullout. Especially because he appears to want to implement at least something resembling a timetable.


No problem with calling me a "righty" or even a Republican for that matter; the "problem" was your jab at my intelligence. If you didn't mean anything, than no worries mate.

Redeployment does make more sense, but like I said, it's Britain not America and it's only 1500-2000 troops (so far). I personally think a timetable is a good idea, it will let the Iraqis know that they need to plan ahead and be ready to take control; which is the ultimate plan. It's that what everyone wants anyhow? America out of Iraq and an Iraq that is democratically self sufficient?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad."fresh"

Read: "try oned then stop-lossed"?

This is just a regrouping exercise before they get deployed in Iran.

I think Iran is a bit of a red herring. Iran would be such an unpopular move that it would cause a ridiculous amount of political turmoil. Iran is a big problem. It's a bigger problem for the US than Iraq ever was. So right now the political forces in this country are going to worry the public over another war while they attempt to clean up the mess this one has become.

As for anyone who thinks that this troop surge of 20 thousand "new" soldiers is going to accomplish anything, 130,000 existing troops + 20,000 new troops isn't much of a tide-turning surge. It's just a band-aid on an open wound that will continue to bleed. Nothing will change by summer's end...much less year's end. Furthermore, I think it's the opinion of an irresponsible citizen to claim that additional troops will somehow remove the fault from the Bush administration's past actions. Lies were told to the public and congress to get this war off the ground; intelligence was made up and plastered all over the front of the news papers; personal agendas were served by entering this war, while the public interest took a back seat to those agendas.

So, this is not a case where the ends justify the means. We were lied to; congress was lied to; intelligence reports were covered up; personal agendas were the real goal; big buisness was the real goal, and it was all under the guise of national safety and the war on terror. This administration pulling their ass out of the fire at the last minute doesn't mean the fire's been put out.

I think I'm psychic! Before I opened this thread for the first time this morning, I predicted that by page 2 the conversation about the UK would be long, long, long gone. Call my 900 number and I'll tell you what you're getting for X-mas.

Originally posted by botankus
I think I'm psychic! Before I opened this thread for the first time this morning, I predicted that by page 2 the conversation about the UK would be long, long, long gone. Call my 900 number and I'll tell you what you're getting for X-mas.

I'm all for people from the UK addressing what's going on in Iraq with regards to this. But they aren't. It would be great if the forum members from the UK talked about what's going on in their country as a result of this, or maybe how their citizens view their administration and the politics that have gone into backing Bush in this war.

Yes, you would think that would be the obvious gist of the discussion.

Originally posted by Marxman
Maybe he'll get the idea and start pulling US troops out. Either that or he'll call for more troops to make up for it.

Call me a cynic, but I think it might be a question of, 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours!' There's a lot goin' on in British politics at the moment, and TB is about as popular as a *ur* in a swimming pool there. He could walk barefoot across hot coals and the British public would still not give him last night's Echo after they'd read it! No, if Tony Blair shook a voter's hand, they'd count their fingers afterward! They'll certainly look for the underhand alternative for the reason of why he's pulling the troops out now!

*td

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well said.



.


And I would venture that those Brits (who've been there close to 4 years) want to go home now that they've secured their area and handed over power to Iraqi's.


20,000 of "our countrymen" are fresh (or at least fresher) than the Brits and they are going to secure Bahgdad.

And as it's been said, "As baghdad goes, so goes Iraq."

The tide is slowly turning.

The new offensive is going to work, wait til end of summer and you'll see. Fact: Iraq and terrorism are worse than they have ever been.

The war is the biggest **** up in history.

Originally posted by Marxman
Maybe he'll get the idea and start pulling US troops out. Either that or he'll call for more troops to make up for it.
unlikely. that would be a sign of weakness. and we all know that george the almighty is anything but.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
think this might have something to do with Prince Harry being deployed to Iraq? Random bump, but I think it's funny how so many people are bitching about it - yet a lot of people always say the people who are running countries and are "at the top" never fight their own battles.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1 Uk to pull out of Iraq

In other news, Bush to pull out of Blair.....