After staying through September, the British get to leave
I can't find the link, but it was recently reported somewhere that the Bush administration had asked the Brits to stay in Iraq through September (Petraeus report.)
Well, that being done, it now looks like the Brits will be handing over "security" in Basra "within weeks," (after war funding passes?) allowing Gordon Brown to begin to pull them out.
The Pentagon released a report yesterday noting that security in the Shia south has "taken a turn for the worse" citing an inflow of militia members from the Baghdad area, but what it doesn't seem to mention is that for the last year, the Brits have pretty much confined themselves to base, woefully outnumbered and trying to prevent casualties because of domestic politics.
For the last year, the British presence, short of some border monitoring, has been largely a token presence left in Iraq because withdrawing would have damaged the US relationship.
But I guess they can "return on success," too.
(Later: The NYTimes has a piece looking at Petraeus' testimony in London, and the appearances of a coming British troop drawdown.)
Well, that being done, it now looks like the Brits will be handing over "security" in Basra "within weeks," (after war funding passes?) allowing Gordon Brown to begin to pull them out.
The Pentagon released a report yesterday noting that security in the Shia south has "taken a turn for the worse" citing an inflow of militia members from the Baghdad area, but what it doesn't seem to mention is that for the last year, the Brits have pretty much confined themselves to base, woefully outnumbered and trying to prevent casualties because of domestic politics.
For the last year, the British presence, short of some border monitoring, has been largely a token presence left in Iraq because withdrawing would have damaged the US relationship.
But I guess they can "return on success," too.
(Later: The NYTimes has a piece looking at Petraeus' testimony in London, and the appearances of a coming British troop drawdown.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:52 AM
5 Comments:
for the record, the only time britain really said no when asked was vietnam.
even then they provided logistical support
By
Anonymous, at 8:24 AM
I've never fully understood the "special relationship" from the British side, except that maybe they feel some obligation as the US is doing battle in all their former messed up colonial areas.
By
mikevotes, at 8:27 AM
I wonder if Brown will be in the loop about the upcoming attack on Iran?
By
Anonymous, at 8:49 AM
Per the Daily Tel 9/15, half of the British forces will be withdrawn to Kuwait by December. 250 will make that move by the end of the month. Kuwait isn't far, but its much safer.
Britain has its hands full in Afghanistan, the other war that is perpetually "turning the corner". The U.S. can finance wars in the short term because the dollar is the default currency. Britain doesn't have that option, and they are going broke siding with Bush.
I think it was Alastair Campbell who said last year that the only country the U.S. has a "special relationship" with is Israel.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:08 AM
Anon, I would think he would be made aware of the possibility, and then called right before.
They'll be warned because of their troops, but I just don't see the British getting in on this one because of their domestic politics.
....
Todd, they're also really stressing their military. Their people aren't willing to sacrifice for Afghanistan, but the price for that may be coming outr of Iraq.
(And they're carrying a significant front line load in Afghanistan.)
By
mikevotes, at 1:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home