Report: U.S., Britain plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 9 months

[wookie294]

LONDON (AP) - Britain and the United States are trying to build a new strategy to exit Iraq that could see British troops coming home by Christmas, a newspaper reported citing a government memo written by the defence secretary.

The Mail on Sunday reported that Defence Secretary John Reid drafted a secret paper for Prime Minister Tony Blair outlining how most of the country's 8,500 troops could be sent home from Iraq within three months, with the rest by the end of the year.

The document also said the U.S. was looking to cut back its own troop levels to 66,000, down from the 135,000 there now.

But in a statement released by the Defence Ministry, Reid said the document was simply one of several period updates examining possible scenarios for the war in Iraq.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w070993A

[ET Awful]

1. They said troops in Vietnam would be home by Christmas

for years. . . . I'll believe it when it actually happens.

[rzemanfl]

4. And World War I, World War II, etc. n/t

[wookie294]

5. Well, maybe I'm naive

I think half the troops will be home before Nov. 2006, regardless of whether the quagmire is still raging. We simply cannot afford this war monetarily.

"In Vietnam, the last sustained war the nation fought, the United States spent $111 billion during the eight years of the war, from 1964 to 1972. Adjusted for inflation, that's more than $494 billion, an average of $61.8 billion per year, or $5.15 billion per month."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-07-cover-costs_x.htm

Bush and the Congress have already authorized over $300 billion for a war that is only two years old.

[blondeatlast]

46. Before November 2006--just in time for the midterms.

I'm willing to bet that the Repubs will figure out a way to make this an issue of fiscal responsibility just prior to the elections.

If our side cries "foul," they can again call us an-American.

This is purely political; and I see Rove behind the entire thing.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

50. And if that happens,

the Dems get to stand up and say "The Republicans finally acknowledge what we've been saying since this war started."

Get the message out that, by bringing the troops home early, the Repubs would be honorably admitting their mistake, and that it's a wonderful first step in taking responsibility for what they have wrought.

Granted, it might make the GOP look like the nice guys, but that doesn't win votes for Republicans. Half their base will be upset with them making such huge mistakes in the first place, and the other half will be upset with them for owning up to it.

[raccoon]

69. And how many here remember

Nixon's secret plan to end the war? He was elected in '68 and was talking about the "secret plan" during the presidential race.

What happened was that the US didn't pull out until '73.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. A clear admission...

...that the mid-term elections have BushCo worried.

Electoral calculation is at the heart of everything they do.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Wasn't there a news report about this on 7/6/05?

It was one of the reasons why a few people around here had on tinfoil the next day. Seemed Tony might have needed a wake call. Good to see they didn't let the attack change their minds.

[cal04]

6. Leaked memo shows Iraq pull-out plans

Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control. The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.

The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.

Revealingly, it hints at tension between the Pentagon and US Central Command, which want a rapid troop reduction, and commanders on the ground in Iraq. The memo also warns that Japan may insist on pulling out the 550 Japanese engineers if they left with the only the Iraq army to protect them from insurgents. There will be a question mark, too, over the 1,400 Australian soldiers in Iraq.

The memo, entitled Options for future UK force posture in Iraq and headed "Secret - UK eyes only", was leaked to The Mail on Sunday, apparently by someone connected with the Defence department who suspected that Britain was preparing to get out quick as an economy measure, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article298143.ece

[faithnotgreed]

7. wes clark spoke of this didnt he

i dont remember when but do recall his words. i made sure to pass the information along to my bush voting brother (but who is open to the truth at least)

[Roland99]

8. Memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050709/ts_nm/iraq_britain_troops_dc

LONDON (Reuters) - A leaked document from Britain's Defense Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

The memo, reportedly written by Defense Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.

"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.

The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.

Be sure to vote up the article, too!

[faithnotgreed]

9. didnt wes clark say the u.s. would do this?

that man needs to be president!

[Auntie Bush]

10. Yes Sir! I'll do what I can Sir!

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Doesn't this directly contradict all the bullcrap that Bush is feeding the

sheeple?

[still_one]

15. yup, and that is why it is another lie

there is no way they can prove it, and since they control the news flow in and out of Iraq, we will not know

[Karmadillo]

12. Who will be the last man to die for a lie?

n/t

[WhiteTara]

66. or woman or child?

:shrug:

[housewolf]

13. Of course there's no US political motive in this...

In spite of GWB staying over and over again that they're no time-line, a plan in existence to reduce troops just a few months prior to the 2006 elections...

Just call me a cynical tin-foil-hatter.....

[still_one]

14. I don't believe it

until I see it

and then how will you really know

It is already KNOWN that we are building fourteen permanent bases in Iraq. The new that comes out of Iraq is very controlled, that is why they try to embed journalists

Do you really believe that bush and company have given up on PNAC?

[still_one]

16. why should we believe this leaked document

and NOT the DSM?

[Roland99]

48. Excellent point.

[leftchick]

17. I believe it is bullshit

bush never had a plan to occupy why would he have one to leave? As a matter of fact he has never had a plan for anything in his putrid patheic fucking life.

[Edgewater_Joe]

18. Just In Time For The Midterms, Eh?

Who'da thunk?

[Jacobin]

25. Oh, NO

PURELY a coincidence!!

[WCGreen]

41. Aside

Edgewater Joe. I live in Westlake.......

[Edgewater_Joe]

53. I Was An Eastsider, Myself

Cleveland proper, near Collinwood. I sitll have family in Parma and Eastlake, but I've been in Chicago since '84 (which is where the moniker comes from -- my current home 'hood).

[Inland]

19. BFD, they are almost out the door already.

The brits are getting down to Poland-level involvement with their 8500 troops, down from the thirty thousand odd involved in the invasion and immediate occupation.

Fact is, Bushie has been letting Blair quietly draw down troops strengh from day two, as long as Blair doesn't cast doubt upon the mission. Good for Blair, who lessens his exposure to casualties, good for the brits who go home, good for Bush who gets to pretend that Blair is a stalwart ally.

Golly, the only people it's bad for are american troops who can't go home and iraqis who need more security, two groups that Bush doesn't care about and Blair has given up on helping.

[0007]

20. Are they gonna walk away from the fourteen military installations?

I doubt it!

[Tahkcalb]

23. Why not, they've already been paid for.

Are they gonna walk away from the fourteen military installations?"
And it give's them a chance to go in again* and build another set.
The ultimate in double billing.
*once the 06 election is past, of course :sarcasm:

[CANDO]

55. No, that's where the 66,000 will be stationed.

EOM

[shanti]

21. ...and move them to where?

iran?

[Spazito]

22. No surprise there, seeing as there are the midterm elections and

the polls are not in support of the Iraq 'war'. This is, imo, simply a paper shuffle to help the Repubs up for election and that's all. Once the 2006 election is over it will be reported that the 'downsizing' of troops in Iraq were actually a rotation of troops due out replaced by others.

Same old, same old.

[Zorra]

24. Bingo, good call. n/t

[Theduckno2]

26. I tend to be a bit optimistic about this news.

I think Blair is a bit tired of George Bush and may be using the leaked memo against Bush's "Stay the course" rhetoric. Seems as though George Bush is the belligerent guest that doesn't want the party to end and Blair is making sure that Bush sees the other guests at the door with their coats on. I do agree that there is no certainty to the proposed timeline, but events do bear watching.

[OKNancy]

27. Kick

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

28. UK memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report

UK memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report
09 Jul 2005 23:20:28 GMT
Source: Reuters
LONDON, July 10 (Reuters) - A leaked document from Britain's Defence Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

The memo, reportedly written by Defence Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.

"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.

The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.

Link

[KoKo]

29. Why am I so suspicious of this "leaked report." Blair & Bush under

tremendous pressure leak to take the "heat off" their butts. Anyone think the US troops will be reduced? Or, is this cover for Blair pulling out...or cover for both of them because of criticism over terrorist attacks increasing worldwide because of their "joined hands" policy of "Invasion and Pre-emptive Strike." :shrug:

[lebkuchen]

35. The Spanish pulled out a lot faster than that

Should be interesting to see what a tepid UK response to the bombings will yield, as opposed to Spain's immediate withdrawal.

[leftchick]

39. because it is BS?

The UK will pull out, that was announced before the bombing. The UK is planning a draw down over the next year. The USA is not going anywhere.

[markam]

30. right in time for the 2006 elections

Disgusted doesn't even cover it. At this point, I am assuming that these people will remain in power until the centralized government collapses as a result of the massive energy crisis which will come.

At least at that point, I won't have to worry about these assholes anymore. It would almost make the end of civilization worth it.

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

31. My thoughts exactly

n/t

[Disturbed]

32. By that time the Iraqi Govt. may demand that...

the Occupation by the U.S. and UK cease. This seems to be the direction that the Iraq Govt. is taking as they have made a Military Alliance with Iran. Shi'ites and Kurds are planning to give limited power to the former Ba'athist Sunnis. Iran is mainly Shi'ite so this Alliance seems plausible.

[Barrett808]

33. Indeed: 103 Iraqi Parliamentarians Demand Withdrawal of US Troops

Juan Cole posted this last week:

103 Iraqi Parliamentarians Demand Withdrawal of US Troops
Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:21:00 GMT

Gilber Achcar kindly shares his translation of an al-Hayat article:

(More than) 103 MPs Demand a Timetable for the Withdrawal of Foreign Troops Baghdad – Abdel-Wahed Tohmeh – Al-Hayat, July 4, 2005

103 members of the National Assembly (the Parliament) have demanded the adoption of a resolution cancelling the request made by the Government to the UN Security Council to extend the presence of multinational forces, and urging the Government to put “a clear plan for army building and a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops” from Iraq.

Falah Hassan Shneishel MP (of the “Independent National Bloc”) explained that the number of MPs demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops has exceeded 103 after more than 20 additional MPs have adopted the statement issued two weeks ago in this regard.

(See my translation of a previous report by Tohmeh.)

Shneishel threatened to call for popular demonstrations in case “the authorities were not serious about the implementation of the demands of the Iraqis for an end to occupation.”

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/103-iraqi-parliamentarians-demand.html

[WhiteTara]

34. we all know that Rover is

a great leaker. This smells funny to me.
:eyes:

[quaoar]

36. This is a disaster in the making

"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said.

It won't be long before the last U.S. personnel are evacuated by helicopter from the roof of the U.S. embassy.

[Eloriel]

44. Whatever it takes

Don't mean to sound callous, but that would be an acceptable outcome to me -- since realistically there IS no "good" outcome possible for this misadventure, and never was.

[bilgewaterbill]

37. I'm sure there's a memo that plans for pullout in 2 yrs., too.

And one for 3 yrs. And one for 4 yrs....

[mrfrapp]

38. Link to complete memo

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355251&in_page_id=1770

[still_one]

40. they believe this leak but not the DSM

it is a diversion

we have set up fourteen permanent bases in Iraq, and the PNAC doctrine calls for a pernament prescence

In my view this is a lie conviently appearing when things are not looking too good in the polls

[all.of.me]

42. aren't 'they' getting ready to start campaigning for 2006? hmmmmm....

[blondeatlast]

45. That was my thought exactly. That makes it about March/April at

the latest.

If it was a priority, they could do it in 3 months, or 6.

I wouldn't mind if the entire administration's efforts were devoted to getting us out, even if it was politically motivated (I remember Nixon and the Vietnam years).

Just do it, low-lifes. Not another human body ravaged by a senseless invasion. Not one of ours, not one of theirs, none.

[blondeatlast]

43. Self-delete; reply is in the above post. nt

[blondeatlast]

47. How perfect for them. If this is irresponsible, the Dems don't dare cry

"foul," because then we will be "encouraging further conflict."

This is purely politically motivated.

Even so, it's time to end it, and that overpowers my skepticism as to their motives.

[dArKeR]

49. American casualties buried in paragraph 13 - RICO! Incredible CORRUPTION

in America!!!!!
By FRANK GRIFFITHS, Associated Press Writer [e-mail], [e-mail]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

I've posted over 100 examples of this on the DU. When is the ACLU, Franken, Rhodes, Shultz (if he's not a NSA/GOP agent), a Democratic Congressperson, a moral journalist mention this or when will a Racketeering lawsuit be filed?

Statistically, the majority of readers don't make it past the 3-4 paragraphs. This is a scientific fact.

1. It is a collusive/racketeering agreement between the Media Whore Corporations and the Bush/GOP Crime Family
2. It is so disgraceful to the American soldiers dying, blinded, amputated, crippled... in Iraq.

Listening to the Oregon Country Failr yesterday, I heard one performers story song. He sang that already we've had more protesters on the streets againsts the Iraq war than the total of the entire Vietnam War. At that time there were thousands of anti-war songs on the radio. There were dozens of American and world Top Hit number one songs. One after another for years. He asked, why haven't you even heard one protest song on the radio today? Again, this can be proven statistically/scienetifically in a court of law (If the judges aren’t Neocon GOP Crime Family corrupt.)
ps. Oregon Country Fair is being streamed live and it's really good music, with alternative talks between sets:
http://www.klcc.org/listen/listen.html
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/

[dArKeR]

68. I hope you guys caught that while the deaths were reported, Removed now!

The story, after being published has been edited and has removed reference to 2 dead American soldiers!

I'm wondering if my/our emailing them made them change it? Actually, maybe I shouldn't put their email because now the world cannot see how dirty and corrupt they are!

[Barrett808]

51. Does anybody believe the WaPo charactierization of the military situation?

But the nature of the threat has changed since a large-scale Shi'ite uprising was put down last August and Sunni insurgents were driven out of their stronghold in Falluja in November, U.S. commanders say -- although they will not be drawn on the pace of future withdrawals.

The center of the capital, which rattled nightly with gunfire and mortars just a few months ago, is now comparatively quiet. Areas like the busy Haifa Street shopping district, once battle zones, are lively again.

U.S. generals credit a brigade of Iraqi soldiers -- the first they say are truly combat-ready -- which had their debut with Operation Lightning, door-to-door sweeps in the capital in May and June.

Today, most of the daily carnage in Iraq is caused by ever- deadlier car bombs, shootings and suicide bombs -- like a suicide attack which killed at least about 20 army recruits on Sunday -- rather than large formations of gunmen. ("British Memo: U.S. Hopes to Cut Force in Iraq in Half by Early 2006", http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000289_2.html)

At least two reporters I've heard in the last couple of weeks have said that nightly (and daily) gunfire in Baghdad is every bit as bad as it was last year. Chris Allbritton barely made it to Baghdad from BIA.

[Barrett808]

52. WaPo: British Memo: U.S. Hopes to Cut Force in Iraq in Half by Early 2006

British Memo: U.S. Hopes to Cut Force in Iraq in Half by Early 2006

By Peter Graff
Reuters
Sunday, July 10, 2005; 7:43 AM

BAGHDAD - A leaked British memo outlining plans to bring more than half of U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year gives the clearest picture yet of how quickly Washington hopes Iraqi forces can take over.

The British government document, published by the Mail on Sunday newspaper, said Washington is discussing plans to cut its force -- now nearly 140,000 -- to just 66,000 by the middle of next year. Britain would cut its own force to 3,000 from 8,500.

"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said, although it made clear the U.S. military's tempo for troop cuts is not set in stone, with commanders still divided:

"There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favor a relatively bold reduction in force numbers and the multinational force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious."

British Defense Secretary John Reid did not deny that the memo was genuine, although he said it represented only "prudent planning" for one possible scenario.

But for the first time it puts a tentative timeline on the strategy President Bush described in a keynote speech last month: "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000289.html

[lebkuchen]

54. Until they are all out, I'll be steering clear of London, Rome

and DC.

[Moderator]

56. kick

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Guardian Utd (Monday): US, UK plan to slash Iraq force over next year

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Monday July 11

UK plans to slash Iraq force over the next year
Memo gives timetable for pullout of most British and US troops
By Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael Howard in Irbil

Britain and the US are privately planning to withdraw most of their forces from Iraq by early next year, according to a secret memo written by John Reid, the UK defence secretary.

Under the plans, Britain will cut the number of its troops from the present 8,500 to 3,000 by the middle of next year. The US will reduce its forces in Iraq from about 176,000 today to 66,000 by early next year.

The plans, outlined in a document put to a cabinet committee chaired by Tony Blair, were revealed as the insurgency in Iraq claimed up to 40 lives and wounded dozens from suicide bombs in Baghdad, the Sunni Triangle and along the Syrian border.

The surge of bombings followed a lull over the last week and took the toll of Iraqis killed since the new government took office on April 28 past the 1,500 mark.

Read more.

Are the Boy and his Dog declaring victory and getting out?

[janx]

58. They're running away.

Iraq is in shambles, in an early stage of civil war, according to Allawi.

[More Than A Feeling]

59. Reps need troop homecomings for 2006 elections

still, this is good news! Not great, because we aren't leaving today or tomorrow, but good.

[mom cat]

60. Just in time for the 06 elections? How convenient!

[More Than A Feeling]

61. So long as they come home, its fine by me

Bush and co are welcome to milk this politically all they want if it means getting the troops home.

[mom cat]

62. I just hope that the dems don't decide to jump on the war bandwagon

and drag this out.

[leesa]

63. Now we'll have to attack ourselves.

[Lilith Velkor]

65. Again.

*sigh*

[Endangered Specie]

64. This is not the first time the troops were supposed to be home by Xmas...

Lets see, WWI wasnt even supposed to last the first Christmas, WWII we were supposed to be done by Christmas 1944 (Market Garden = Failed), and they sure as hell missed alot of them in Vietnam too.

Grain of salt.

[WhiteTara]

67. these guys are masters of backwards speak

whatever they say, think the opposite.

[JABBS]

70. Leaked British Document Says Troops To Be Halved in Iraq Next Year

LONDON, July 10 (Reuters) - A leaked document from Britain's Defence Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

The memo, reportedly written by Defence Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.

"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.

The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.

"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said.

The United States is training Iraqi forces to take over the country's defence in the face of an insurgency involving allies of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and foreign militants allied to al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But critics say Iraqi troops are not ready to take charge of security in their country.

"There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers and the multi-national force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious," read the memo.

Reid said in a statement in response the article:

"We have made it absolutely plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decision on the future force posture of UK forces has been taken.

"We have always said it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases.

"We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies. This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. This is prudent planning."

The United States and Britain have the two largest contingents of foreign forces in Iraq and the memo described the impact a reduction of U.S. and British forces might have on other allied troops.

"The Japanese will be reluctant to stay if protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position may also be uncertain."

The memo said reducing British troop levels in Iraq would save about 1 billion pounds ($1.74 billion) per year.