Anybody want to discuss the political aspects of this?

[Sir Jeffrey]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1577937,00.html

"British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003."

Remember, we tell the Brits what to do now, apparently, so this is straight from Washington.

I say Blair is made to be the fall guy for this since he already has his post-PM job lined up at Carlyle...Shrub comes off as reasonable just before midterms and the Dems don't gain as much bc the appeasement wing of our party will see to it we don't get very many firebrands. This lays the groundwork for a brand new war against <insert your favorite evil country here...I still say Iran> and voila! Police state in '08.


I'll even go further and say that after the elections in Iraq, it will become overwhelmingly obvious that they want us out so the Shias can finish off turning Iraq into New Iran. By then, we'll be ass deep in UN Security Council resolutions/WMD inspections against Old Iran and staring down the barrel of a new war by January.

History will repeat itself with ridiculous turnaround IMO.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Smells like cut and run to me.

[rodeodance]

2. to me it signals the US will start withdrawal also. Rove waiting for the

right moment to make announcement.

[Sir Jeffrey]

3. Yeah, but we gotta have a firebrand to tell the truth...

otherwise it'll be "Our Great (p)Resident stood on principle and made some tough decisions without regard to politics" etc.

Mark my words: this will be the narrative for the 2006 campaigns. The media will glowingly praise the success of Iraq (even as it descends into civil war...like with the "free and open elections" rife with corruption).

Will any prominent dems step forward to offer our own narrative, or will they praise the outcome because they don't want to go on record as claiming the US lost another war? I think I know the answer to this, and I don't like it.

[Roland99]

4. Not anymore..---> Scrap Basra police and start again orders MoD

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1990832005

DEFENCE Secretary John Reid is planning to scrap the 25,000-strong police force in southern Iraq and replace it with a new military-style unit capable of maintaining law and order.

Reid ordered a root-and-branch review of security in the troubled province following last week's disastrous clashes between British troops and Iraqi police.

The violence has also led to the scrapping of a detailed plan that could have seen UK forces withdrawn by May next year. Instead, it now seems certain Prime Minister Tony Blair will have to keep British troops in the country until 2007 at the earliest.

The sudden U-turn on Britain's military commitment to Iraq has caused anger and despair in military circles. One former defence chief told Scotland on Sunday the Iraq expedition had been a "colossal political failure".

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. Our troops aren't going anywhere

this is just pre-conference pish to placate us more-than-dissolusioned "urban intellectuals"

[Totally Committed]

6. It's Blair's cynical attempt to hold onto power for his Party...

the loss of his office is but a "Loss of Confidence" vote away. And, in Britain, as here, the Iraq War has begun to lose proponents quickly. He's back-peddling as fast as he can, imo...

TC

[1932]

7. Apparently, we don't (or didn't) tell the Brits what to do in Basra.

I read a book by George Friedman, America's Secret War (IIRC), which I really didn't like. The conclusions were insane. But some of the factual information, I assume, is accurate (even though the book completely lacked footnotes or any attempt at all to cite sources.

According to Friedman, the British invaded southern Iraq and found a shadow governmentn aparatus ready to take control. Iran had been secretly supporting a shadow government apratus for years, waiting for the inevitable moment when Hussein would be deposed or die, That shadow aparatus was apparently relatively democratic, and, although financed by Iran, was made up of Iraqis.

The British saw no reason not to turn over political control of Basra immediately upon finding Iraqis willing to govern themselves. (Afterall, wasn't that the point of the invasion -- to depose Hussein and turn the government overt to Iraqis?).

According to Friedman, this infurriated the Bush administration. This is why the US really didn't want a coalition of strong nations assisting them.