British to Withdraw from Iraq

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Riiiight, when you thought Casey was confirming your point, it was damning; when it turns out he confirms mine, it's meaninglessly political. Clearly I can't "win" this one, but one last point:

Follow:

If 2004 reports said it was stretched to the breaking point;

And it is worse now than it was in 2004;

And in the 2006 reports, the military is still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;

That would tell you the 2004 "stretched to the breaking point" reports were a bunch of bullshit; and

The same media is driving reports in 2006, and the similarity to 2004 is that they are both election years.

To remind you, your point was "wishful thinking" and the difference between 2004 and 2006 is approx. 2000 US death troops and ten if not hundred thousands Iraqi casualties.

These 2006 reports were from January, I believe you se black helicopters.

[Flint]

So...Bush is all like and Terrorism is all like but the Liberal media is all like and the American public is all like ???

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

So...Bush is all like and Terrorism is all like but the Liberal media is all like and the American public is all like ???

No, Bush is the dope. Who is the rope?

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Flint

So...Bush is all like and Terrorism is all like but the Liberal media is all like and the American public is all like ???

You read too much comics...

[sproglet]

The Brits are withdrawing because we can't match the $300 billion 'invested' in Iraq by the US thus far. Thirty years experience stomping on people's faces in Northern Ireland also has shown us how overstaying one's welcome can exacerbate the political and social problems in a divided country.

If I was a US tax payer, I would be pretty pissed off by now and wondering why the fuck nothing is being done.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sproglet

The Brits are withdrawing...

No, they aren't. You prove the point that the thread title is misleading.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't remember if I've mentioned this....CRS, ya know.

The Netherlands just ordered a bunch of new J model helicopters and an upgrade on a bunch of older D models. I figure it'll be 3 or 4 years before they get their first delivery.

Because it's a foreign sale of military equipment, the Pentagon has to approve (which they have) and get the ok from Congress. The deal was presented to Congress, by the Pentagon, as being ok because the Netherlands would then use them to help us out in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Hippikos]

Even James Baker thinks the US should withdraw "come what may", or in his words "Redeploy and Contain".

Bombshell report will urge Bush to withdraw from Iraq


AN INFLUENTIAL United States commission is set to recommend a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq when it delivers its report early next year.

The Iraq Study Group (ISG), headed by James Baker, a former Secretary of State in president George H Bush's government, is expected to advise the current president to change his policy.

The recommendations are understood to include a new strategy of "Redeploy and Contain," which would see US forces gradually withdrawn from Iraq to bases elsewhere in the region.

Although the report will not advocate a hasty withdrawal, it confirms the emerging consensus in Washington that George W Bush's determination to "stay the course" regardless of mounting casualties, increased violence in Iraq and public dissatisfaction with the war, is no longer a seriously tenable option.

The group is also considering another option, called "Stability First", which would advise securing Baghdad, while bringing Iran and Syria to the table to use their influence to end the insurgency crippling efforts to bring peace to Iraq.

"The bottom line is, [the current policy] isn't working... There's got to be another way," one participant in the ISG meetings said. "You can't come out of those briefings and not have a sense that things are in real bad shape.

"The bottom line is, it's not working. They know that. And they know that time is not on their side."

The report will deal a fresh blow to Tony Blair, who has insisted that British forces would stay the course in Iraq.

At a Downing Street briefing, Mr Blair said he would be "absolutely astonished" if Mr Baker's commission called for troops to pull out of Iraq "come what may". The Prime Minister's case for staying the course suffered a massive setback last week when General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, warned that the presence of British troops was exacerbating the problems. However, Mr Blair stressed that Sir Richard was not calling for the immediate withdrawal of British troops.

British forces would not "walk away" from Iraq or Afghanistan until their job was complete.

Leaving either country now would leave the extremist enemies - both in the UK and abroad "heartened and emboldened".

"It is our policy to come out of Iraq when the job is done. What is very dangerous is any suggestion we get out before the job is done," Mr Blair said.

Mr Baker's previous role in US administrations will make his recommendations difficult to dismiss. He headed Mr Bush's legal team during the crucial and decisive Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election.

The White House has not commented on the Baker groups' proposals, but an official said: "If an independent group like the Baker panel can come up with some good ideas, we're all for it."

Source

"Leaving either country now would leave the extremist enemies - both in the UK and abroad "heartened and emboldened", is of course another blatant misleading by Bliar as documents showed that al-Qaeda fights against US and UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are a showcase.

[Hippikos]

Step by bloody step the Iraq War moves toward its denouement. Having set this tragedy in motion, the United States today finds itself consigned to the role of bystander, the world’s only superpower having long since lost control of events. As things unravel, the president—the most powerful man in the world—is demonstrably powerless to affect the outcome. Meanwhile, American soldiers fight on, even as it becomes increasingly apparent that the Army only recently thought all but invincible will not win this war.

For the Bush White House, September 2006 will be remembered as the month when the roof caved in. Bad news came in successive waves: the Marine intelligence report declaring Iraq’s critical Anbar Province all but lost; the failure of an all-out effort to win “the Battle of Baghdad”; the warnings from senior military officers that the Army, its readiness in free-fall, is nearing the end of its rope; opinion polls showing that a large majority of Iraqis simply want the Americans out of their country; above all, the leak of the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) declaring, “the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terror leaders and operatives.” In response to all of this, the administration has had little to offer other than to repeat President Bush’s conviction that “the only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense.”

Although not especially adept at using the English language, the president manages in this short sentence to capture the fundamental error of judgment that has mired his administration in a crisis from which it cannot extricate itself.

Meanwhile, the once crack Third Infantry Division, preparing for its third Iraq tour, has two of its four brigades without tanks or other heavy equipment. The Army’s chief of staff complains that army depots are clogged with 600 battle-damaged and worn-out Abrams tanks and 1,000 Bradley Fighting Vehicles awaiting repair. The Army lacks the money to fix them—this despite the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have now cost an estimated $500 billion.

From The American Conservative.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

From The American Conservative.

Hippikos has quotes a 23 Oct 2006 article entitled:
"On the Offense
No matter what the facts say, President Bush insists that we stay the course."

The article only confirms reality published by the NY Times on 25 Sept 2006 and quoted in The Cellar at:
Unit Makes Do as Army Strives to Plug Gaps
in a discussion entitled "Has the Bush Doctrine failed?"

[tw]

As Sir General Richard Dannatt implied; from ABC News of 20 Feb 2007:

British P.M. Blair to Announce Timetable for Iraq Withdrawal
Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as President Bush implements a surge of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

Dannatt accurately noted:

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope.

"Whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Obviously this is contrary to what George Jr says. In previous statements, George Jr suggested Americans will be in Iraq even in 2010. With so little public protest, George Jr's legacy is protected.

[Hippikos]

Iraq, the British endgame

[DanaC]

The US has privately admonished Britain claiming it is interested only in Basra

What.....as opposed to only being intrested in its oil?

[Cyclefrance]

I think the exit flight has a 6-month stopover in Afghanistan...