The NEW Downing Street Memo: Secret US/GB plan to quit Iraq

[paineinthearse]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355291&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Secret plan to quit Iraq
EXCLUSIVE By Simon Walters, Mail on Sunday
10th July 2005

Britain and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, The Mail on Sunday has learned. A secret paper written by Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later. The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.

Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save £500 million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through. The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced. The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was "vital" the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.

'Military drawdown' - Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - "military drawdown," as he puts it - are well advanced. It says: "We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006. "This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel by mid 2006. "This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs of around £1 billion per annum. Though it is not exactly clear when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006." Mr Reid states that his proposal is not yet a "ministerially endorsed position" - or Government policy - though he clearly believes it should be. Significantly, he underlines the serious impact on other Allied troops in the area now under British control, including 550 Japanese engineers rebuilding the infrastructure and 1,400 Australian soldiers: "The Japanese will be reluctant to stay if protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position may also be uncertain." Mr Reid says he will produce "further and more specific proposals" for the Cabinet's Defence and Overseas Policy (Iraq) Committee, which is chaired by Mr Blair. But some British Army chiefs are opposed to Mr Reid's plans. One senior officer claimed the Minister had no option but to recall 3,000 British troops in October as Britain has already promised to send an extra 3,000 personnel to southern Afghanistan to replace US soldiers. "The momentum for this is more to do with pressure from America and the woefully overstretched British Army than whether Iraq is ready to look after itself," said the source. "The timing seems very convenient.

much more.....

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

Paper by Secretary of State SECRET - UK EYES ONLY

1. ISSUE

We will need to reach decisions later this year on likely future UK force structure and disposition in Iraq into 2006.

This paper sets out some of the key contextual considerations; identifies areas of uncertainty; sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution; and assesses the potential impact on UK decision making.

2. Decisions on coalition, and within that, UK force levels will be governed by four factors, all of which are subject to a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty:
* Internal Iraqi pressure for further force posture changes.
* Successful progress in the potential process and extension/renewal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. (Mail on Sunday footnote 1)
* The continued development of the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
* The security situation.

3. None of this, however, undermines the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) (Mail on Sunday footnote 2)broad security strategy of:
a) Working with the Iraqis to contain and restrain the insurgency.
b) Assisting and encouraging the development of Iraqi security forces and structures which can progressively assume responsibility for all aspects of security including dealing with the insurgency, and thereby:
c) Enable MNF-I force reductions and eventual withdrawal.

4. US POSITION

US political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall US commitment levels.

Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.

There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom (Mail on Sunday footnote 3) who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.

The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.

5. (Technical details)

6. UK POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East. (Mail on Sunday footnote 4)
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.

7. Looking further ahead, we have a clear UK military aspiration to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (Mail on Sunday footnote 5) in October 2005 and in the other two Multinational Division South East provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra (Mail on Sunday footnote 6) in April 2006.

This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale, by mid 2006.

This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs which fall to the reserve, (Mail on Sunday footnote 7) around £1 billion per annum currently. Though it is not clear exactly when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006.

8. None of this however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan. There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way. We will need to consider handling of other MND SE allies.

The Japanese reconstruction battalion (Mail on Sunday footnote 8)will for example be reluctant to stay in Al Muthanna if force protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position, which is highly influenced by the Japanese presence, may also be uncertain. (Mail on Sunday footnote 9)

NOTE

I will bring further and more specific proposals to DOP-I (Mail on Sunday footnote 10) for the future UK force posture in Iraq, including handover to Iraqi control and subsequent UK military drawdown.

John Reid.

Mail on Sunday footnotes

Footnote 1: ( UN resolution authorising allied troops presence in Iraq)
Footnote 2: (The Multinational Force of Allied troops in Iraq)
Footnote 3: (Centcom is the US military command centre in the US)
Footnote 4: (Not get involved in operations outside area around Basra under UK control)
Footnote 5: (two of the four provinces around Basra in UK control)
Footnote 6: (the other two UK run provinces)
Footnote 7: (The UK Treasury Reserve)
Footnote 8: (Japan has 550 engineers in UK area of Iraq)
Footnote 9: (Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq ,whose main job is to protect the Japanese)
Footnote 10: (The Defence and Overseas Policy, Iraq sub committee of the Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister)

[jojo54]

1. Another leaked doc???

I just don't know, what's this world coming to when our esteemed leader of the free world can't keep his administration honest.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....sigh.

[xray s]

2. Not too hard to read between the lines

We have to reduce forces because we don't have enough forces.

BushCo. Killer of the Volunteer Army, amongst other things.

[Son of California]

4. Troop Withdrawal

so here's the one thing that is confusing me about the troop reduction issue.

our ability to reduce American troop levels in Iraq revolves around the number of trained Iraqi troops ready to take their place.

Now if the US military has basic schedules that their boot camps follow i.e. they have a clear schedule for how long it takes to properly prepare an American soldier for the field -how come they can't apply similar if not identical standards to the training of the Iraqi National Army, thereby giving us a clear time line concerning the withdrawal of American troops?
It seems so logical and simple.

[xray s]

9. see "vietnamization" for previous example

[htuttle]

3. Just had a thought about this secret plan to 'withdraw'

For one thing, I don't for a minute believe that Bush is willing to 'give up' Iraq for a whole number of reasons I won't go into at the moment. I do think that Blair might be scramming, though.

I'm wondering if this 'leak' is sort of an improvisation on Nixon's 'Secret plan to end the war' tactic, except through 'leaks' instead of an official pronouncement. With Congressional midterms approaching, I'm expecting some manuevers from the RNC/Bush Crime Family to mitigate the political damage from the Iraq war.

[glitch]

5. Very good point. nt

[paineinthearse]

6. Interesting angle

We need an updated code word for "plumber", those involved in fabricating the documents and releasing them to the www.

[meti57b]

7. I hope we're not pulling troops out of Iraq so we can send them to Iran!!!

[deeperpolitics]

12. Nuclear warheads to be dropped on Iran

The threat of nuclear warheads being dropped on Iran might seem far-fetched to some...but placed alongside the following information we can see how the American public are swayed to feel they are being attacked (by "Washington's":http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html own secret terrorist operations mind you, not by the scapegoat false flag terror group of the US Administration's choice and "creation":http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ ).
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ and also http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

"Operation_Gladio":http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/18/120.html ... a well-documented false flag terrorism operation...see source at http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/18/120.html
Also, “Operation Northwoods” was a US government plan to stage the assassination of civilians and blame it on Communist Cuba. See “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, National "Security_Archive":http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html

This is the art of false flag terrorist operations…The government covert terror operations create the impression that their own country is under attack, then government blames the scapegoat nation of its choice, and finally the general mesmerized population rally around the flag for war.

So let us look at these two internet research articles again with a different eye:

Planned "US-Israeli_Attack _On_Iran":http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

by Michel Chossudovsky
1 May 2005
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons...(more)



Upon reading the above, the threat of nuclear warheads being dropped on Iran might seem far-fetched...but placed alongside the following information (which I suggest is actually 'dis-information') we can see how public opinion is swayed to feel they are being attacked (by the US Administration's own government secret/covert terrorist operations mind you, not by the scapegoat false flag terror group of the US Administration's choice and "creation":http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ ).

"Al-Qaeda":http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html planning "American_Hiroshima":http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the “American Hiroshima” and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

So yes, the above article is likely telling us that a nuclear terrorist operation is about to occur somewhere in North America this summer or fall ...The point that needs to be made is:
Further police state measures will be implemented in Europe and North America...measures to muzzle critics of US and British destructive foreign policies. Also, martial law and national ID cards will be implemented ....and of course the billion dollar no-bid weapons/military contracts to affiliated supporters of the US Administration's never-ending 'war-on-terror'.

The 'axis-of-oil nations' will be taken over by force. And hundreds of thousands of civilians are now dead and will die from radio-active fallout not only from nuclear bunker busters but also from depleted and non-depleted uranium tipped war-heads already in use.

[shance]

8. There were a couple of articles two weeks ago on Brits withdrawing

I've heard nothing but the US staying for the long haul.

[paineinthearse]

10. Scuttlebutt is US troop levels will be drawn down prior to the 2006

election, to save rethug Congressional seats.

[wallwriter]

11. Except troop drawdowns are not a secret. It's in the MSM...