Beginning of the end
If you're hoping to hear Tony Blair announce the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq you're in for a disappointment. There will be no date for the last British soldier to leave Iraq. There will, instead, be a confirmation of the defence secretary's cautious prediction in a that "by the end of next year I expect numbers of British forces to be significantly lower by a matter of thousands".
In that speech, Des Browne said that reducing the size of the British contingent in Iraq did not mean that Britain was withdrawing, and said that there was no timetable for a full pull out. "We need to be clear: the handover does not mean withdrawal". I expect the prime minister to echo that today.
The real story here is that this is a slower withdrawal than many in the British army had hoped for. You will recall the comments of Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, who that the presence of UK forces “exacerbates the security situation” in parts of Iraq and makes our troops a target. You may also recall a predicting a halving of British forces by the summer - not by the end of the year as now looks likely. They quoted an unnamed general. It is rumoured to have been Major General Richard Shirreff who was the British commander of forces in the south of Iraq.
It would be intriguing to know what pressure the Americans have put on the Brits regarding the speed of withdrawal. The comments of former presidential candidate John Kerry show how awkward the apparent difference in their approaches is politically however many times the governments in London and Washington proclaim - not unfairly - that the situations in the north and south of Iraq are different.
Today's announcement is however driven, in part, by politics. It reflects a desire to be seen to be withdrawing before commemorations of the fourth anniversary of the start of the war, before the local elections and before Tony Blair bows from the stage. It will not mark the end of Britain's involvement in Iraq but will mark the beginning of a long process leading to that end.
I'm 
Comments
This is hardly the first time we've been tantalised by the prospect of British troop withdrawals.
Call me cynical but on hearing this news this morning my first thought was that Blair's making this announcement now so, when he's asked about Iraq in the inevitable, interminable, round of exit interviews he'll undertake before he goes, he can point to it, say that British troops are expected home in a matter of months, then change the subject. Of course, by the time Christmas comes around we'll be told the security situation has "unexpectedly" gotten worse and that the troops need to stay for just a little longer...
The real story is told on the ±«Óătv news website front page - this so-called announcement has pushed down the Ruth Turner item from where it would have been with a more balanced editorial input. When will you recognise how much you and the rest of us are being manipulated and then say something about it, as opposed to accepting it in an Orwellian, prole-like manner.
Today's announcement is however driven, in part, by politics.
And nothing at all to do with distracting from cash-for-peerages headlines...?
Another non-announcement then, presumably having nothing whatsoever to do with Ruth Turner being interviewed again on Tuesday?
"Beginning of the end"
For 700,000 (and counting) in Iraq the END has already come Nick.
It's only a "draw down" if some degree of success have been achieved. In these circumstances, where the local population is rising up and chucking us out, it is customary to call it a retreat, i.e. the act or pulling back or withdrawing, as from something dangerous, or unpleasant.
This is what I call media manipulation of the highest order.wasn't this the same announcement made by Maggi Beckett just about three or four months ago. so what has changed? I know, it is a day to bury bad news. Ruth Turner questioned yesterday and the prime minister briefed the sun about his plans which has dominated the bulletins on both sides of the atlantic. Also letting it be known that there was a video conference with president Bush (who gave his permission)
genius!!!!!
we are not mugs.
dont you think it is about time we left iraq_
it is the only good thing blair has done-and when he is leaving--
he should leave more often!!
Nick
I quote "The real story here is that this is a slower withdrawal than many in the British Army had hope for"
To make this remark you must have seen an actual Army withdrawal plan, otherwise your comment has no value. So why not give us the Army troop withdrawal figures. This will allow us the general public to compare the government figures to those of the Army.
By quoting the Daily Mail and Telegraph you have just jumped onto the media merrygoround. Tomorrow the Mail and Telegraph will be quoting the ±«Óătv and so on until it's quoted by Consrvative Party HQ as fact not as media gossip.
So the government expects to draw down troops over the course of this year?
Is this not the same government that expected troops in Afghanistan to be able to return home without firing a shot? And the same government that has no control over the repercussions from the escalating tension between Washington and Tehran?
All I'm saying is put me in the "very sceptical" column until there's a verifiable and unconditional commitment to withdraw all troops from Iraq.
Well as an ex-pat sitting in Boston US, this looks like positive move.
The British Army went about it's business with little fanfare and has had great success.
The US, however, has a poorly managed force with a misguided leader. The leader only has one idea that is completely opposite to the successes of the Brits.
The announcement of a partial reduction was predictable, but in view of present circumstances in Iraq a major withdrawal would not be feasible. While political pressure is an issue behind the reduction of the number of troops, the naked truth is that many British soldiers are engaged in their third or fourth tour of duty and that factors like combat fatigue must be taken into account. We know that long term the presence of British troops in Iraq is not viable given the shortage of troops and many commitments. Tony Blair mentions once again Syria and Iran, and especially Iran on the day the UN deadline expired. We do not know what is cooking, but if there was to be an intervention against Iran taking troops away from the frontline to send back to the frontline would not be the best course of action. I observe from the sides with a certain degree of trepidation. Given the feeverish pitch of the US debate about Iran there are no 'ifs' but 'whens'.
The reason for the announcemnet can indeed be summarised in two words (as previous posters have said) 'Ruth Turner'.
The illegal attack on Iraq has been a total disaster from the start - not only for the Iraqi people but for British democracy. Pull the troops out now or leave them there, the fallout will blight us all for decades to come.
It may also signal a desire to remove UK forces from harms way in a potential upcoming US-Iran war. If such a war was being planned then its likely Blair has been consulted.
I'd guess the UK forces levels in Iraq are insufficient to contain a full scale Shia rebellion - which might accompany war with Iran, and are too large to be withdrawn fast. A smaller force could afford the government that flexibility.
I'm guessing the alternative of boosting forces (aka the surge) is out of the question even for Blair.
I've been wondering if it's also to do with the impending Scottish Parliament elections, where Labour could well lose power in Scotland. Let's see if it's a Scottish Regiment coming home...
May I say how very encouraged I am to see such healthy scepticism in these postings. Maybe all is not lost yet.
An army staff officer reviewing the situation in the British zone would probably conclude that it requires about 28 infantry battalions and support troops to provide security, guard the extended borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia and enforce the rule of law across the 4 pprovinces.
There are currently about 14 battalions, 10 Iraqi Army and 4 Coalition, though a couple of the Iraqi ones have gone off to Baghdad for the surge. So, under half the number theoretically required.
However, the situation is not under control. The Brits and the local police are still being attacked on a daily basis, not - as someone writes above - by the 'locals rising up', but by several viscious militias, including the Mehdi Army and Badr Brigade, who are wrestling for the spoils. The borders are still very porous, because there aren't enough troops to do surveillance, so weapons and fighters come in from Iran without much hindrance.
I do not think this draw-down is a military announcement, other than that senior commanders want to get more troops in Afghanistan. It is a political move designed to appeal to the anti-any-war lobby prior to May elections. Does that make it a good decision? Not really, it leaves a lot of citizens and minorities in Basrah less secure and puts an Iraqi division in charge that's too small, not ready and not properly equipped. Basically, we're rushing it on the ground for political reasons back home.
This is welcome news and all too easy to criticise but the bottom line is that the British armed forces have played an important part in trying to stabilise this country. A phased withdrawal and a handover to Iraqi forces is logical and I applaud the government for this step in the right direction.
It is sad and disgraceful that our government are in a position to take advantage of the acclaimed professionalism and loyalty of our Armed Forces so that they (the government) can be percieved to be doing something.
Troop withdraws are not about new found security in Southern Iraq its more government spin. Sadly its Mr Blairs retirement during the coming months that is the key to this annoucement.
Mr. Blair has been 'light' with the truth on many of the Governments policies I wonder if he's begining to believe his own spin!
One of the Prime Ministers first speaches he wished that no British Forces would be commited to combat with a risk to their lives.
This Prime Minister has sent the Forces to war more than any other Head of the Government.
Great! Tony is answering UK and Iraq by doing slow withdrawal he either wants to stay for ever or leave in a snapshot (leaving Iraq in a mess)
George has to learn a lot from his alliances.
Haven't the troop levels been reducing for some time now? Didn't there used to be about 12,000 soldiers there rather than the 7,000 that there are now?
Anyway, it's good news WHATEVER your opinion on the war, not that you'd think that from the previous emails.
If this is a joke,it's in very bad taste!
Have Bush and Blair become (blood brothers)? I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they're talking to each other! I almost forgot; their the only ones allowed to "wire-tap".
We in the States call it "throwing a rabid dog a bone".
Anything to save face.
Business as usual I suppose---ho hum
Incredible.
Ruth Turner gets questioned again on bail.
Suddenly TB makes a vacuous, nebulous, rehash of troop withdrawals.
And you all fall for it!
Wake up - you are being manipulated.
Read Animal Farm.
Watch a good magician - the flourish of the right hand when he wants to keep what the left hand is doing hidden.
Lead with what TB is trying to distract you from.
Whether we stay or withdraw.
It will be wrong!!
Confused? - Iam!!
America gives the guidelines for what will trigger an attack on Iran. British troops go back to barracks in Basra creating what could become a vacuum, a shi'a faction invite Iranian help.
Blair and Bush can't be that cynical, or can they??
His days at No. 10 numbered, Tony Blair appears to be trying hard to resurrect his image left in tatters by the unjust war in Iraq.
Had they been leaders of "Third World nations" Blair and Bush would be reviled as "war criminals" for the coalition's excesses in Iraq - right from the invasion of a sovereign nation in 2003.
It's amusing how the White House has managed to put a positive spin on the British withdrawal plan. Similar suggestions from Democrats and the Iraq Study Group were shouted down as "cutting and running."
So today Blair has announced a partial withdrawal of troops from Basra and Southern regions of Iraq where there is supposed calm, try telling that to the Iraqi people who suffer daily bombings and murder.
We all know why he is announcing this today and that is because he wants to say that troops started coming home on his watch and not Gordon Browns'
Also, as previous comments have suggested, Blair wants to bury the Ruth Turner situation into inside pages of newspapers.
Our troops are just superb.
Under-equipped, under-resourced, but superb.
I really don't know how Blair, Brown, Browne, Reid and their predecessors can sleep at night.......
Why is it that Des Brown never seems to be in the right spot at the right time. We hear very little from him in the commons and even less in his constituency. In fact if it was not for my emails from "Theyworkforyou.com, I would have serious concerns about his whereabouts.
You Brits are lucky: At least your pols are planning troop withdrawal.
Reductions might happen, but surely a complete withdrawal would defeat the object of the war. We need to keep some troops there to look after the oil.
Good Morning Everyone,beautiful day here in Kentucky. I hope to visit your country one day.
If we all would vote for "Statesmen" instead of lawyers, (Barristers} I think you call them there, life would
be better.
Speaking for myself, I'm a little more than embarrassed by this debacle. I confess to not having all the answers. Until we get "sick and tired of being sick and tired"
,I'm afraid we're going to continue to experience more of the same.
Aristotle (384-322) BC
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than by reverence,and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment it brings,than because of it's own foulness".
Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1856-1900)
"As long as war is regarded as wicked,it will always have it's facination. When it is looked upon as vulgar,it will cease to be popular".
Also He Said---
"There is no sin except stupidity"
Dave Edwards' comments are brilliant! COME ON dave. There is like 0.2% of the population who think that ruth turner being interviewed for a third time by police (not charged) is a bigger story than a major withdrawal of troops from iraq.
And all of that 0.2% either actually work in politics or literlly foam at the mouth
In the debate Mr Blair in responding to the Lib Dem leader appeared to say he take us to war to get rid of Saddam. Was I hearing things as I thought that was actually illegal? Can you check this please Nick?
This plan says a small number will be pulled out 6 months hence. When he will no longer be prime minister.
In truth Blair will never authorise a pull out while Prime minister since to do so would be to anger George Bush- his master and admit to his own people that he was wrong. everything Blair says is about justifying a course of action which practically the whole world know was a mistake. Blair feels no personal remorse about the blood on his hands however he is afraid of the anger of Bush and The chorus of "We told you so" is something Blair is to vain to face.
Blair thus takes refuge in fantasies such as the carnage is not his fault Saddam really was a threat, Iraq is becoming a democracy about Iraq, The insurgency though widely predicted is nothing to do with his invasion and that the Iraqi army is taking over the provinces when everyone knows the militas will be taking over and finally that his actions have nothing to do with domestic Islamic terrorism though everybody he cannot fire accepts this is the case
British disengagement will be an Issue for Blairs sucessor who will hopefully view the situation as it is rather than through self justifying fantasies
Having read all ur views to be honest i am happy that they are pullin them out, my boyfriend is over there now an has been for 4 months, use all myt think i only want him home coz i miss him which is try i cnt deny that, i am only 18 so u cud say am a lil nieve on the prime minister and stuff all i no is they shud cum home, they have done wat they had to do (in the worst accomodations ever might i add) and now its time to cum home, i really think this withdrawal will take alot longer then said but we will see i doo really miss him so much and cry aloot because of the danger he is in, they r all young to over there too, ow many lives must it take for people to realise they shudn be there, am just goin on now an alot of people readin this will probably think am just a kid goin on, but trust me ive cried so much and i av sat by there fone waitin for im to fone me that am really tired an hope that this withdrawal does happen, send them back to thier families x
Blair's on his way later this year and our troops in Iraq will be there long after he has gone.
His latest piece of vulgar appeasement of the British people was to announce that 1600 troops will be coming home from Iraq at the same time we're to send a further 1000 to Afghanistan. An overall reduction of 600 if my maths are correct.
What a total and utter disgrace Blair is and the sooner he is gone, the better!!
This country does not want Gordon Brown as prime minister, it will be FATAL MISTAKE, we cannot afford him.