Thread: UK says enough- timetable for troop removal

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair will order nearly half of all British troops in Iraq home by the end of 2007, British news outlets reported early Wednesday.
The Sun newspaper said that Blair will tell the House of Commons Wednesday that 1,500 soldiers will be back in Britain within weeks and that 3,000 of Britain's contingent of 7,000 will be back by the end of the year.
"Control of the south of the country, unaffected by the civil war raging around Baghdad, will be handed back to the Iraqis," the tabloid reported.
The move comes as the United States is sending more troops into Iraq in an effort to put down a wave of sectarian violence in Baghdad and pacify the western province of Anbar, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency.
In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said President Bush has been grateful for British support "in the past and into the future."
"While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis," Johndroe said in a statement issued Tuesday evening. "The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq."
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in January that the United Kingdom was unlikely to send any more troops to Iraq.
In November, Defense Secretary Des Browne said Britain planned to bring several thousand troops home from Iraq by the end of 2007, but he gave no specific numbers. The remaining troops would be used to train Iraqi military and police forces, provide backup for Iraqi troops and protect supply lines for British, U.S. and allied troops who remained.
Britain contributed about 46,000 troops, sailors and air force personnel to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. More than half of those troops were withdrawn within two months of the invasion, and the remaining contingent, now numbering about 7,000, was based mostly in the southern city of Basra.

Reports: UK to begin withdrawing Iraq troops - CNN.com

Hmmmm Is something the UK is doing working that we should be looking at or is Tony more attuned to what the citizens of his country want?

Whatever - thank goodness is all I can say. Good to hear.

I was really surprised at that news when I heard it. I doubt that Tony is "more attuned to what his citizens want" at this late date.

Why were you surprised, Mig? Things are fairly quiet in the South and we have a very small army that we need to redeploy. And Labour are massively down in the opinion polls, that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully.

Originally Posted by Magpie

Why were you surprised, Mig? Things are fairly quiet in the South and we have a very small army that we need to redeploy. And Labour are massively down in the opinion polls, that tends to concentrate minds wonderfully.

My surprise is "at this late date". Not that I disagree with Blair, he does, after all, have to do what's best for his country.
Nobody could find fault with England "being there for us", or they shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

My surprise is "at this late date". Not that I disagree with Blair, he does, after all, have to do what's best for his country.

ah but he wants to go down as one of Britain's most successful prime ministers and time is running out ... Wants to do what's best for his country - hmm - think the jury is still out on that one.

Actually it is a great shame without the invasion of Iraq he probably would have been. I can remember when I used to admire him. Even saw him in the flesh once, playing in a charity match at Queens London. He did do some good things, stablised the British economy by giving the Bank of England Independance, started the minimum wage, ended, so it seems hopefully, the troubles in Northern Ireland but what he will be remembered for is taking us into Iraq and there being no WMDs. Nothing will change that now.

Originally Posted by Magpie

ah but he wants to go down as one of Britain's most successful prime ministers and time is running out ... Wants to do what's best for his country - hmm - think the jury is still out on that one.

Actually it is a great shame without the invasion of Iraq he probably would have been. I can remember when I used to admire him. Even saw him in the flesh once, playing in a charity match at Queens London. He did do some good things, stablised the British economy by giving the Bank of England Independance, started the minimum wage, ended, so it seems hopefully, the troubles in Northern Ireland but what he will be remembered for is taking us into Iraq and there being no WMDs. Nothing will change that now.

I wouldn't give up on Blaires favorable place in history, Magpie. This war in Iraq isn't over & again, he did what he thought was best.
BTW-Where in Iraq is Prince Harry going....or will he still be going now?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I wouldn't give up on Blaires favorable place in history, Magpie. This war in Iraq isn't over & again, he did what he thought was best.
BTW-Where in Iraq is Prince Harry going....or will he still be going now?

Sorry Migi but I gave up on him when he joined in the invasion of Iraq. He may not have lied in a legal sense but many members of parliament as well as the general public felt misled by his exaggeration of the threat from Saddam. The U.N. Mandate was also far more important to us - I never believed he would go in without that second mandate.

His domestic policy hasn't gone so well either. :whistling:

I've no further info on Harry's involvement, that he would want to serve I am sure whether he will be allowed to is another matter.

Have a good day.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I wouldn't give up on Blaires favorable place in history, Magpie. This war in Iraq isn't over & again, he did what he thought was best.
BTW-Where in Iraq is Prince Harry going....or will he still be going now?

He's not i don't think. It got shouted down as a falacy pretty quickly.

And i think blair will be remembered for his "lies" even if Iraq is a success. The feeling that the country was manipulated and forced into an american war is strong. It may not cover the entire of his footnote in history but i think it will be in there and tarnish the record he wants for himself.

And its sad to see a man so obsessed with how he will go down in history running the country, there are even rumours that he isn't going to leave before may because that would complete a full decade in power even though him staying that long will probably lose labour the scottish elections

oh and i forgot to add that his domestic policy has gone tits up

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Nobody could find fault with England "being there for us", or they shouldn't.

At thr risk of giving away my nationality , I'd just like to point out that the troops in Iraq are British, not just English.

Obviously I consider this to be good news, but in terms of Mr. Blair's legacy, it's all too little, too late.