Blair may peel off?

[snot]

In fact, if not in rhetoric.

It appears both Bush and Blair are considering withdrawing troops more or less asap--political expediency.

I assume they wouldn't do so without some assurance they'll likely retain control of whatever they went to war for in first place--oil? military bases? contracts in dollars rather than Euros? --

The fact that we here on DU have not developed any sure consensus about this does NOT bode well for our ability to respond to this adversary! We NEED to understand them.

But to proceed . . .

What is Blair still getting out of this? I'm thinking he may not feel fully and fairly requited for his support.

However, BP is one of the biggest oil cos. in the world.

I've seen no analysis of its interests in this conflict.

[Kipling]

1. BP is behind it. Also, Blair liked to see himself as Messiah to Iraq.

BP and ExxonMobil, the world's two largest energy companies, have big pulling power on Blair and Bush. Plus, I think Blair - or maybe his PR people - loved the idea of rolling in with a heroic pose and throwing out the Big Bad Saddam.

[LiberalEsto]

2. Pulling out of Iraq means:

Getting ready for Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

[sunnystarr]

4. That's not until after the second 9/11 ...

they can't possibly go to Iran (which is the next target) unless that happens.

[Larkspur]

3. Considering withdrawing troops is a 2006 election gimmick

Having a plan to withdraw troops with a timeline of withdrawal is an action plan that most likely indicates the Shiites are ready to push us out of Iraq.

The Shiites recently made a defense and economic deal with Iran. Iran trained the Shiite militia group Badr Corps, so it looks like the Shiite leadership are looking for a better partner and Iran has more in common with them than with us.

If we pull out, don't be surprised if we end up arming the Sunnis to keep a civil war going against the Shiites and Iran.

[Doug1865]

5. The recent bombings and attempted bombings in London will

push the British out of Iraq,as similar bombings did the Spaniards. Then the bombers will turn to getting the British out of Afghanistan.

No government will admit to giving in to pressure of this sort, but the logic seems inescapable.

[ikri]

10. Spain pulled out of Iraq

Because it was an election manifesto pledge of the victorious Spanish government. The former Spanish leader managed to piss off a load of people in Spain by trying to place the blame for the bombings not on Al Qaeda but on the Basque group ETA.

Britain may pull out of Iraq simply because the British controlled sectors of Iraq are by most reports pretty quiet and generally secure, thus there's less of a problem in pulling out. This was being discussed prior to 7/7 btw.

There's a danger in creating the idea that because of the Madrid bombings Spain pulled out or because of the London bombings Britain will pull out. Like the neo-cons, many in Al Qaeda believe that through their actions in Afghanistan they are responsible for the fall of communism.

One of the most dangerous things we could possibly do is allow the idea that Spain/Britain will do whatever you ask if you just blow up parts of the transport infrastructure to propagate.

[Larkspur]

6. Juan Cole's take on troop withdrawal

On How US Troops Aren't Coming Home Any Time Soon
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/on-how-us-troops-arent-coming-home-any.html

<SNIP>
Here's what General George Casey actually said:


"If the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe that we will be able to make some pretty substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer of next year."


The draw-down of US troops in Iraq is here made conditional on two premises. One is that the "political process" goes "positively." If by that is meant that the Sunni Arab notables now fighting an unconventional civil war against the Shiite Arabs and the Kurds are drawn into the new government, that hasn't happened on any significant scale and there is no early prospect of it happening.

As for the training of Iraqi troops to take up security duties, that isn't going well even now. There are only about 3,000 Iraqi troops ready to actually fight, and I don't know how you get enough to actually provide security in only a year. Five years would be the minimum, if it can be done at all.

Since Casey's two conditions can't be met, his statement only gives the appearance of optimism on this score, with none of the substance.

It is forgotten that Paul Wolfowitz told Congress that the US would be down to only a division (~20,000 men) in October of 2003. Then it is forgotten that the Pentagon announced a draw-down from 135,000 to 110,000 in spring of 2004 (just before the Bush administration decided in its wisdom to "kill or capture" Muqtada al-Sadr). That draw-down didn't happen. Why? The security situation didn't allow it.
<SNIP>

[julianer]

7. It might just be spin

I don't know. But what Blair is getting out of it is a bit easier. Blair's policy is for the UK to get a share of the new world order. Maybe the boss will also allow a little business on the side, perhaps in west Africa or the Caribbean.

We've already got a bit of business going in east Africa with mineral extraction in the Congo (we don't seem to object to Rwanda and Uganda's invasion of Congo) - and no one's going to complain because we're friends with the big boys.

Neo-conservative = neo-imperialism.

And it's not that BP is in any way British - it's a transnational corp and its ownership includes a worldwide wealthy elite, who are served by nearly all governments, and those which don't serve get invaded, sanctioned or subverted.

[Greeby]

8. The most ironic thing

In the first term at least, Blair couldn't grab his ass with both hands unless a focus group told him it was a good idea.

Sure could've used that pandering to opinion these last few years

[Lexingtonian]

9. In the British press

there are plenty of leaks out of the Blair cabinet, which say that they've realized that the Bush folks want to withdraw a lot of American troops out of Iraq during '06 in order for Republicans to survive our November '06 elections with control of Congress.

The Blair people recognize that if they don't match the behavior, they're going to get stuck with a disproportionate share of responsibilities and troops and such in Iraq. Politically speaking, they'll get stuck holding the bag- knowing the way the Bush people operate, offloading all failures onto other people if they can.

So it's been said in the British press that the only smart thing to do on the British side is to draw down troops in Iraq in a way proportionate to American draw-downs.

What Blair ever got out of it- a Thatcheresque military adventure joyride. (Well, it was supposed to be a joyride.) Yeah, there are oil shenanigans, but that's just corruption and a lot of stupid little boys arguing in a pretty big sandbox ten minutes before a downpour.

[wli]

11. pull out regular troops, send in Boykin's death squads

No surprises.