"I just wonder if they will ever tell us the truth." - Harold Casey, Louisville, KY, October 2004.
This really puzzles me. The British Sunday Telegraph reported that Washington and London had agreed to pull out all the coalition troops from Iraq by early 2007: All British soldiers to be out of Iraq in 12 months by Sean Rayment 03/05/2006. Rayment reported:
All British and United States troops serving in Iraq will be withdrawn within a year in an effort to bring peace and stability to the country.
The news came as defence chiefs admitted privately that the British troop commitment in Afghanistan may last for up to 10 years.
The planned pull-out from Iraq follows the acceptance by London and Washington that the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace. (my emphasis)
The comment about the Afghan War lasting up to 10 years (or is that 10 years from now?) is notable in itself. But the report about a complete British-American pullout from Iraq is much more surprising. The Telegraph story is sourced to "a senior defence source directly involved in planning the withdrawal" who also says that "Britain is the driving force behind the scheme".
But the terms of the allegedly planned withdrawal also sound a bit peculiar:
The source explained that troop numbers were expected to decrease slightly over the next 12 months but that the bulk of British and American forces, who make up 138,000 of the coalition's 153,000 troops, would be withdrawn simultaneously.
The British and American military had hoped to begin removing their forces from Iraq this year but those plans were shelved because of worsening security and the failure of both Sunni and Shia leaders to form a government of national unity.
The source added that the British Army had still not recovered - in terms of training and intervals between operational tours - from the war in Iraq almost three years ago.
On the face of it, this seems inconsistent. If the Bush and Blair governments have really come to an agreement that the presence of their troops is fueling the insurgency, why would they maintain something close to the current troop levels for a year and then withdraw all the forces rapidly? The description above sounds like the plan is to maintain the troop levels for a year and then pull them all out within a matter of days or weeks.
If the situation there continues to deteriorate, such a very rapid withdrawal could become the only option. But it also sounds unrealistic. Withdrawing 135,000 troops in the US case can't be done overnight. It's not just a matter of putting everyone in planes and helicopters and flying them over to Kuwait. Unless it turns into an actual rout, which is not outside the realm of possibility. As Gene Lyons recently put it, "Iraq isn’t Normandy, it’s Dunkirk, a tactical retreat from an over-exposed and unsustainable position." (Bush’s fabled intuition may be just that Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 03/01/06) But unless it comes to a leaving-Saigon-in-the-last-helicopters scenario, it's hard to imagine why either military would plan such a withdrawal plan.
Even the Telegraph article is confusing on the nature of the supposedly planned withdrawal, saying latter on in the piece:
The Sunday Telegraph understands that coalition forces, comprising troops from 24 countries, will begin to reduce their presence on the ground markedly over the next few months.
They will withdraw to their bases, where they will in effect become a garrison force to be deployed only in emergency.
It doesn't make complete sense. A withdrawal-to-base approach would effectively recognize that the "coalition" military effort has failed and had to be ended. That would be expected as an immediate preliminary to withdrawal. But not a action to be taken a full year before withdrawal begins, with the withdrawal itself to be extremely fast.
The denial from the Pentagon came quickly (US military in Iraq denies troop withdrawal plan Reuters 03/05/06):
Media reports that America and Britain plan to pull all their troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2007 are "completely false," the U.S. military in Iraq said on Sunday, reiterating there is no timetable for withdrawal. ...
"This news report on a withdrawal of forces within a set timeframe is completely false," Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson said of the stories in Britain's Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Mirror, which quoted unnamed senior defense ministry sources.
"As we've said over and over again, any withdrawal will be linked to the ability of the Iraqi security forces to maintain domestic order on behalf of a representative Iraqi government that respects the rights of all its citizens. This is an ongoing assessment and not linked to any timeframe," he said.
There are currently about 135,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines and about 8,500 British troops in Iraq. The full U.S.-led coalition numbers around 160,000. Italy, with the fourth largest contingent in Iraq, has said it plans to pull out this year.
I wonder what's behind the complete-pullout report. Someone in the British Defense Ministry trying to creat pressure for such an outcome? It's hard to know. "Transparency" hasn't exactly characterized the Iraq War operation, on either the American or British sides.
"Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of." - George McGovern and Jim McGovern 06/06/05
4 comments:
Bruce,
Frankly, it's hard for me to imagine a withdrawl unless their hand is forced by the peace movement. Iraq is simply to valuable an assett for the neo-cons to leave before they know that their puppets are firmly in place. But, like you said, "transparency hasn't exactly characterized the Iraq war operation..."
dave
Yeah, Dave, and that's one more reason to be skeptical about this withdrawal story. And I think you're right. The Bush administration hasn't given up on establishing a pro-Western government that will do their bidding. They have no clear idea on how to get there, the military force is clearly inadequate for what they're trying to do (if it is possible at all), and the situation deteriorates steadily, except when sometimes it deteriorates faster.
The Bush crew just has no idea how to get out of there. - Bruce
I put this story up on Blue's News, even though I have my doubts.
On the one hand, Bush would love to get out of Iraq now if he can do it without having to eat a big pile of crow. On the other hand, things might get a lot worse before they get better, and the GOP have to be worried about the elections in 2006.
What I really think this story is about -- despite the denials from the Pentagon - is not a leak by people who want to push the withdrawal, but by people who want to protect the President's reputation by lowering expectations (just as pols try to do before a big debate).
Float the idea of a complete withdrawal in a year, and get people used to the idea that it might happen. Once people have accepted that the war might just end that way, it is a lot easier (or at least a lot less shocking) for Bush to make a hasty exit.
That's the new Bush strategy -- if you can't win, then set lower expectations.
Amazing.
Neil
That would be my guess, too. The Army is freaked out over the toll this is taking on them, and the Marines, too.
Gary Hart was saying last October:
***
Every senior military officer who will be candid has said that we're exhausting both the Army and the Marine Corps in ground operations. And there's a secondary level of attrition and erosion in the Air Force and Navy just because of the kinds of constant ops, high-tech ops, that are going on in support of the ground forces. I think it'll take 20 years, at least, to rebuild the standing military in this country, not just financially but, more important, in terms of the human element.
***
(From http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol12/0512_hart.asp
Also, they have been promising drawdowns basically since the day we invaded, or close to that. I'll believe it when I see it. That McGovern/McGovern quote I often use at the end of these posts is really true.
Post a Comment