Telegraph: MoD to pull troops out of Iraq within a year

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...CFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/03/wirq03.xml

Military chiefs are drawing up plans to withdraw all British troops from Iraq within 12 months.

Iraq is seen as the most dangerous country on earth

A fresh timetable, which would see a unilateral withdrawal from the war-torn country by next May, will be presented to Gordon Brown within weeks.

It is understood that when Mr Brown becomes prime minister later this month, he will be told by defence chiefs that Britain should withdraw from Iraq in "quick order" and concentrate on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
However

A source close to Mr Brown said: "Gordon has made clear that we will continue to meet our commitments to our allies and to the Iraqi people.
I suppose that mr.Brown would keep the troops in Iraq until the next elections. He is very experienced politician and understands how important are close ties with American administration. I guess that timetable for the withdrawal would be declared by mr.Brown just before the elections. The Tories that time will be for continuation of Iraqi war (unprofitable position from many points of view).
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#2
I feel that I must point out that military commanders will always have plans to withdraw from a theatre they have deployed into. That is not news but part of their jobs and completely routine. Understanding the mechanisms of have to withdraw your people and materiel and how long it will take is a key staff function.

In relation to the political situation, deploying troops is a political decision. It is quite natural that a change of political leadership will lead military leaders to review withdrawal plans. I can just imagine the scenario of Gordon Brown calling in CDS and telling him to withdraw troops immediately. If the response from CDS was "Oh, I don't know, we haven't thought of that!" he would undoubtedly be clearing his desk before nightfall.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see how Gordon Brown will justify whatever decision he makes.
 
#3
Of course when someone leaks the "lets sty in Iraq for 20 years and increase troop size" plan to the mail, then it makes things more interesting. Just because a plan exists, doesnt mean its going to be implemented.
 
#4
The first signs that Britain was considering withdrawing from Iraq earlier than had previously been planned first emerged last October when General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the defence staff, said Britain should withdraw troops "some time soon" because "our presence exacerbates the security problems".

Useless journo's!
 
#5
Just because a plan exists, doesnt mean its going to be implemented.
That is of course true Jim but this one seems a lot firmer and timely than that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1876221.ece

Jonathan Shaw has warned in his tactical advice of the dangers of staying too long and by the time this plan goes to ministers GBrown will be in charge.

Brown is due to sit down with Shaw and Graeme Lamb and ask them when they think British troops should pull out. He would like it as soon as possible. They have endorsed a plan that says it could be done by the end of the year. I don't think any of them is going to have to phone a friend on this one.
 
#6
It does of course bely the tin foil hatters who claim that Iraq was all about oil or maintaining a huge military presence in the ME.
 
#7
Sven said:
It does of course bely the tin foil hatters who claim that Iraq was all about oil or maintaining a huge military presence in the ME.
How so?

Just because the aftermath didn't go the way the powers that be wanted it. It does not affect the original intention.
 
#8
Gordon Broon would be guaranteed another 4 years if on the day he recieves his first question about iraq he was to say.

"troops in iraq, which nobhead agreed to that"

He is very experienced politician and understands how important are close ties with American administration
He should also understand the damage that bond to the US has done to his party.

all in all im looking forward to broon taking power merely to see if he actually does something different or tread on everyones feet like blair
 
#10
ChickenHeart said:
I simply can't see us leaving by May 08 - our politicians are too gutless to stand up to the Americans.

See you on Telic 12...........

CH
lucky then our troops will stand with them.....
 
#11
Sven said:
It does of course bely the tin foil hatters who claim that Iraq was all about oil or maintaining a huge military presence in the ME.
I'll be very surprised if there's anything less than a huge US military presence in the ME for the next couple of decades. That's what Bush means when he talks about a Korean Model. Whatever the Brits do I don't think DC has much option on that, a Vietnam like extraction from this mess is a happy fantasy. The question is where the DMZ will be.

Thomas P.M. Barnett reckons:
Reality of this float: the DMZ runs between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq.
The Saudi/Kuwaiti border and the Persian Gulf is more likely and the black dots are why.

They are the Saudi fields. The prize. They are why the 5th fleet has lived in the Persian Gulf for five decades.
 
#12
Absolutely!

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1116858169

June 02, 2007 01:00am

THE US Defence Secretary suggested for the first time yesterday that American forces could be in Iraq for at least another half century, under an arrangement similar to the effectively permanent US troop deployment in South Korea.

In comments that will dismay war opponents at home and alarm Muslim allies in the Middle East, Robert Gates said that "some force of Americans" will be in Iraq for a "protracted period of time" and pointed to South Korea as the model.

US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, in the heavily armed demilitarised zone that separates the country from North Korea.

US generals are in charge of the combined US-South Korean forces.

Mr Gates, speaking to reporters in Hawaii during a visit to US Pacific Command, said that current war plans still called for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September, but he said he was looking beyond that to the type of military presence the US would have in Iraq over the long term.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21836272-663,00.html

We might go but the US is staying firmly put. They'll want a return on their investment, after so much blood and treasure being expended.
 
#13
Taz_786 said:
We might go but the US is staying firmly put. They'll want a return on their investment, after so much blood and treasure being expended.
I'm not sure that the Americans would be able to stay in Iraq for a long period. Saudi Arabia asked USA to go home and it had been done. It happened in Uzbekistan. Again the Americans abandoned the country (though tried not to pay).

If 'democratically' elected Iraqi parliament would demand the withdrawal (in fact just now the majority of Iraqi legislators want it) then USA would be in a very difficul situation. What to do? Go home or throw out a mask of a promoter of democracy?
 
#15
I agree that this is just a couple of hacks stating the bleeding obvious; there are plans to leave Iraq and there are plans to invade France but they may never happen. Except for the latter...oh damn. There goes OPSEC again! LOL!

Litotes
 
#16
Litotes said:
I agree that this is just a couple of hacks stating the bleeding obvious; there are plans to leave Iraq and there are plans to invade France but they may never happen. Except for the latter...oh damn. There goes OPSEC again! LOL!

Litotes
:D

God forbid I should actually compliment a journalist but, after the hyperventilation over the weekend, Michael Evans of The Times, this morning, seems to make more sense:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1878705.ece
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top