Troops In Iraq To Be Withdrawn Within a Year

[KissStephanie]

Both the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror in Britain have reported today that the troops in Iraq will be withdrawn within 12 months, but with a commitment of up to 10 years in Afghanistan, according to a senior defence source. Not surprisingly, these reports are being disputed by Washington for a number of reasons, but it seems to me to be the wise option to the situation in Iraq, particularly following two weeks of sectarian bloodshed.

"All British soldiers to be out of Iraq in 12 months

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 05/03/2006)

All British and United States troops serving in Iraq will be withdrawn within a year in an effort to bring peace and stability to the country.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.

According to a senior defence source directly involved in planning the withdrawal, Britain is the driving force behind the scheme. The early spring of next year has been identified as the optimum time for the start of the complex and dangerous operation."

 

[skipper kelly]

Sounds like good news to me. If "the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace" is true and the troops withdraw, Iraq will be left with a situation of having a democratically elected Government and peace. What more could anyone ask for. Sounds like a successful conclusion is near. Well done to the governments and troops responsible.

 

[camsmith]

SK it wont be that easy.

If anyone takes what UK papers say serously... they are living in fairy land.

Saying that, they are withdrawing troops already, as the Iraqi army builds up and IF violence slows down then troops will continue to be withdrawn, nothing new there. However, if you set a time limit, it just gives the enemy the idea of waiting it out until the US led forces are out.. and then take over the country. We dont want that, so they must continue to train the iraqis and stay as long as the Iraqi government wants them.

You only need to look at this to know that the US and allies are making progress

Well done to the governments and troops responsible.

No doubt they have done a great job so far, leaving too early could undo all that good work though.

Good to hear someone in here congratulating the troops..we dont hear it enough.

 

[Mr Q]

Sounds like good news to me. If "the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace" is true and the troops withdraw, Iraq will be left with a situation of having a democratically elected Government and peace. What more could anyone ask for. Sounds like a successful conclusion is near. Well done to the governments and troops responsible.

You managed to post that with a straight face?

 

[IntheNet]

Both the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror in Britain have reported today that the troops in Iraq will be withdrawn within 12 months, but with a commitment of up to 10 years in Afghanistan, according to a senior defence source. Not surprisingly, these reports are being disputed by Washington for a number of reasons, but it seems to me to be the wise option to the situation in Iraq, particularly following two weeks of sectarian bloodshed...

Ever notice how the leftist liberals are so hot against the war, wish to pull the troops out, but have no alternative plans? Also note that leftists frequently cite references to media sources, but will not cite the actual war planners; i.e., CENTCOM or DoD.

 

[- PC -]

ITN and Cam... heres a few lessons in political reality

Lesson 1

The English and Australian governments rely on popularity to remain in office. GWB doesnt and cant run any longer than his 2 terms already served. Removing the troops in 12 months time is a great political move on the home front... pictures of cheering people crying wives and politicians stuck in the middle makes good local tv. Political mileage can be used to return both standing parties.

Lesson 2

If 2 people are fighting do you keep them in the same room? If you remove 1 then they cant fight...can they? The issue as I see it is that the insurgents have a target, so by removing the target you either minimise the destruction or you show how silly their attacks are ie if they continue to attack themselves then with good pr spin they can be shown to be bloodlust filled animals with no sign of stopping and need to be removed.

 

[camsmith]

Lesson 1, a great political move would be to win in Iraq, a bad move would be to leave Iraq to fight for themselves. A fight that, at the moment, they would probably lose.

Lesson 2, Two people are fighting in a (crowded) room, one person leaves, the other starts killing everyone else. That Person killing everyone else rallies for support and takes over room and kills more people.

Lesson 3, The political reality is that setting any sort of timeline may be great in the short term to make the opposition happy, but in the long term.. it will be a bad strategy imo.

 

[IntheNet]

Removing the troops in 12 months time is a great political move on the home front... pictures of cheering people crying wives and politicians stuck in the middle makes good local tv. Political mileage can be used to return both standing parties...

I could care less about "pictures of cheering people" and I am not sure it has relevance to the situation at hand... until the mission is complete I see no reason to withdraw troops... we still have troops in S. Korea! My point is that until terrorists in Iraq are still a threat, coalition troops should remain! If they are there for another four years, so what?

Leftist liberals keep urging a withdrawal but until the mission is finished I see no reason to cut and run! The point of going into Iraq was valid, as is their mission. They should stay until the mission is complete.

 

[- PC -]

Lesson 1, a great political move would be to win in Iraq, a bad move would be to leave Iraq to fight for themselves. A fight that, at the moment, they would probably lose.

No ... the tide is turning.People want quick victories not drawn out affairs. People will remember a long death better than a quick pullout...aka Vietnam

Lesson 2, Two people are fighting in a (crowded) room, one person leaves, the other starts killing everyone else. That Person killing everyone else rallies for support and takes over room and kills more people.

And maybe the people stand up to the person killing and say enough is enough...have more faith in your fellow humans

Lesson 3, The political reality is that setting any sort of timeline may be great in the short term to make the opposition happy, but in the long term.. it will be a bad strategy imo.

And we have differing opinions.

 

[- PC -]

I could care less about "pictures of cheering people" and I am not sure it has relevance to the situation at hand...

Comprehension not taught in Darwin schools?

until the mission is complete I see no reason to withdraw troops... we still have troops in S. Korea! My point is that until terrorists in Iraq are still a threat, coalition troops should remain! If they are there for another four years, so what?

Leftist liberals keep urging a withdrawal but until the mission is finished I see no reason to cut and run! The point of going into Iraq was valid, as is their mission. They should stay until the mission is complete.

The mission

To find WMDs

To remove Saddam


To promote US interests in the area

Yep guess you gotta find those WMDs

You cant finish a mission when you have no idea what the mission is.

 

[IntheNet]

You cant finish a mission when you have no idea what the mission is.

The mission is to combat terror... that has not changed.

 

[camsmith]

No ... the tide is turning.People want quick victories not drawn out affairs. People will remember a long death better than a quick pullout...aka Vietnam

Will people like a quick pullout and then to see on the news everynight scenes of more violence and Iraq being taken over?

And maybe the people stand up to the person killing and say enough is enough...have more faith in your fellow humans

Faith? Do you know how many people are willing to blow themselves up for 'Allah'
People are standing up to the person killing and saying enough is enough, they are the Americans and Allies. To say enough is enough you must be able to defend yourself against those killing, or else you yourself will be slaughted. That is why we must stay until the Iraqi army can defend themselves and only then can they stand up (by themseves) to those killing innocents.

And we have differing opinions.

I've noticed and thats fine, i respect your view, i just disagree with it.

 

[- PC -]

The mission is to combat terror... that has not changed.

Then the mission has failed

Terrorism is now on everyones agenda and the threat has increased one hundred fold. You are creating a hundred terrorists for each day you stay in Iraq

 

[- PC -]

Will people like a quick pullout and then to see on the news everynight scenes of more violence and Iraq being taken over?

Unfortunately the media will slide it further and further towards the back pages and the weekly roundup

Faith? Do you know how many people are willing to blow themselves up for 'Allah'
People are standing up to the person killing and saying enough is enough, they are the Americans and Allies. To say enough is enough you must be able to defend yourself against those killing, or else you yourself will be slaughted. That is why we must stay until the Iraqi army can defend themselves and only then can they stand up (by themseves) to those killing innocents.

Ask those people on the plane who attacked the terrorists and saved the White House... it only takes a few good people. That is faith

 

[IntheNet]

Then the mission has failed

Sorry... your glasses failed...

Afghanistan
-Taliban defeated
-Al Qaeda defeated
-Elements of Al Qaeda on border being combatted now
-Order restored to country; internal democratic elections

Iraq
-Saddam Hussein captured
-Bath Army/Republican Guard defeated
-Order restored in nation; democratic elections
-Utilities being restored (schools being opened)
-Insurgent terrorists still vying for power; sectarian violence onging

Worldwide
-Al Qaeda cells identified; arrests made
-Identified terror leaders/followers moved to Gitmo
-Terror Financial assets frozen worldwide
-Coalition of nations fighting terror cells
-Former terror-sponsoring nations cooperating; i.e.,Qadhafui/Libya

 

[camsmith]

Unfortunately the media will slide it further and further towards the back pages and the weekly roundup

The same media who have been on Bush's back ever since he went into Iraq? i dont think so, any news during occupation or afterwards that makes the president look bad will be in the media imo.

Ask those people on the plane who attacked the terrorists and saved the White House... it only takes a few good people. That is faith

The enviornment of a whole country compared to a plane is kinda different. Although i get what your saying.

Those guys on the plane are heroes and i have no doubt the 99% of Iraqi people want the terrorists and insurgent gone, im just not sure whether they have the means to actually do it themselves.

Then the mission has failed

Terrorism is now on everyones agenda and the threat has increased one hundred fold. You are creating a hundred terrorists for each day you stay in Iraq

I just finished watched a great doco on the rise of Osama bin laden aswell as the rise in terrorism, i dont think without the Iraq war islamic terrorism would have just gone away.
Imo, it would have just continued to grow as it has today.
We must remember the US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 on home soil.. would this be the case without Iraq? Would the US be fighting the terrorists in the US rather than Iraq if it wasn't for the invasion?

 

[- PC -]

[I just watched a great doco on the rise of Osama bin laden aswell as the rise in terrorism, i dont think without the Iraq war.. islamic terrorism would have just gone away. Imo, it would have just continued to grow as it is today.

But at what rate? I have a different view on terrorists and terrorism in that half of their oxygen is publicity..like the knob in jail who gets kudos for each front page he makes, so I think terrorists like the world to know they are baddies.

I feel that it is easier to capture someone when they are not aware...now every terrorist knows he is been looked for and will take better steps to cover his tracks.

We must remember the US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 on home soil.. would this be the case without Iraq? Would the US be fighting the terrorists in the US rather than Iraq?

No they wouldnt. 11/9 wasnt a failure of intelligence but a failure of action..and yes this failure was by Clinton...but on his behalf he at least proposed it..it was his advisors who said not to. It was also a failure of Bush and his intelligence directors for adopting a sit and wait attitude

Please see my response to ITN for a further slant on my feelings

 

[- PC -]

Sorry... your glasses failed...

Afghanistan
-Taliban defeated
-Al Qaeda defeated
-Elements of Al Qaeda on border being combatted now
-Order restored to country; internal democratic elections

Iraq
-Saddam Hussein captured
-Bath Army/Republican Guard defeated
-Order restored in nation; democratic elections
-Utilities being restored (schools being opened)
-Insurgent terrorists still vying for power; sectarian violence onging

Worldwide
-Al Qaeda cells identified; arrests made
-Identified terror leaders/followers moved to Gitmo
-Terror Financial assets frozen worldwide
-Coalition of nations fighting terror cells
-Former terror-sponsoring nations cooperating; i.e.,Qadhafui/Libya

Lets do a minimum estimate of cost

How many lives lost? Iraqi and American.

How much will it cost to replace the infrastructure?

Troop costs?

Lets say 30,000 lives? Seems to be the general guesstimate.

$400 billion?$ 800 billion?

Increase in terror alerts all over the world

Increase in the heroin supply back out of Afghanistan?

Me I would spend that $4-800 billion on intelligence, on propping up internal groups on education , use sanctions to force people into accepting a view. Spend the money on crop management. Search the warlords in the area or even pay the fkers to stop the drug supply or even pay for the drugs and destroy them.

But hey what would I know

 

[IntheNet]

Lets do a minimum estimate of cost

COST:
Is it your money? So what are you worried about? Did the word "cost" surface during World War II? Did we say, "Crap...those French aren't worth saving...let's let Nazism run its course!" No we didn't! Cost never figured into the equation then...it shouldn't now.

LIVES:
During our Civil War, 600,000 lives were lost...nobody has ever questioned whether it was "worth it"!

 

[- PC -]

COST:
Is it your money? So what are you worried about? Did the word "cost" surface during World War II? Did we say, "Crap...those French aren't worth saving...let's let Nazism run its course!" No we didn't! Cost never figured into the equation then...it shouldn't now.

LIVES:
During our Civil War, 600,000 lives were lost...nobody has ever questioned whether it was "worth it"!

Oh please

I was stating what i felt was an issue and a way I would have approached it

If you like stroking your rifle then all well and good. Cost should figure in any equation. We should be above using guns to solve problems. 60 years ago life was different

Oh and are you seriously comparing Islam to Nazism?

 

[medusala]

COST:
Is it your money? So what are you worried about? Did the word "cost" surface during World War II? Did we say, "Crap...those French aren't worth saving...let's let Nazism run its course!" No we didn't! Cost never figured into the equation then...it shouldn't now.

An interesting view of history.

Of course you gave the Brits all those shocking WW1 destroyers for nothing didnt you?

Not only that but which country was the one that insisted on reparations being repaid after WW1 when other countries were willing to forgive them?

Who paid for the first Gulf War?

As for saving the French, what were you up to in 1940?

 

[Moo]

Sorry... your glasses failed...

Afghanistan
-Taliban defeated
-Al Qaeda defeated
-Elements of Al Qaeda on border being combatted now
-Order restored to country; internal democratic elections

Taliban defeated? Someone forgot to tell them

Sunday 5th of March 2006..... following attacks by hundreds of militants, 50 pro-Taliban militants and five soldiers have been killed in fierce fighting in Pakistan's troubled North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border. Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpaom described those killed as "local Taliban".

Al Qaeda Defeated? ....

(Reuters) --Donald Rumsfeld ...... The United States lags dangerously behind al Qaeda and other enemies in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday 17th of Feb 2006.

Also Friday 17th of Feb 2006 according to Peter Clarke (British head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch) .....'We are still learning about the nature of the Al Qaeda threat and how to deal with it....and anyone who bleieves that the war against them would be won imminently is hopelessly optimistic'.

Mmmmmmm ITN - does Rummy and the head of the British anti-terrorist unit count as credible? or are they just behind on renting the 'We Won - George Bush DVD's'?

I'll leave your 2nd last comment (how do you battle elements of a group on a border that you claim is defeated?)

Order restored -

Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing (1st of March)

Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values even though $16 billion of American taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program as attested by several government witnesses

Of seven measures of public services performance presented at the committee hearing by the inspector general's office, only one was above preinvasion values.

Those that had slumped below those values were electrical generation capacity, hours of power available in a day in Baghdad, oil and heating oil production and the numbers of Iraqis with drinkable water and sewage service.

Only the hours of power available to Iraqis outside Baghdad had increased over prewar values.

In addition, two of the witnesses said they believed that an earlier estimate by the World Bank that $56 billion would be needed for rebuilding over the next several years was too low.

Mmmmmmmmmm

Elections ....check.

We wont mention the internal death toll.

Iraq
-Saddam Hussein captured
-Bath Army/Republican Guard defeated
-Order restored in nation; democratic elections
-Utilities being restored (schools being opened)
-Insurgent terrorists still vying for power; sectarian violence onging

Saddam captured - check

Bath Army / Republican guard defeated militarily yes .....but where are they now ITN

How many are in the interior ministry and national intelligence service? none of course, they were all defeated.

Order restored? sink another drink ITN.

Check on the elctions / check on the civil war.

Worldwide
-Al Qaeda cells identified; arrests made
-Identified terror leaders/followers moved to Gitmo
-Terror Financial assets frozen worldwide
-Coalition of nations fighting terror cells
-Former terror-sponsoring nations cooperating; i.e.,Qadhafui/Libya

True but how many terror cells are developing because of the intervention?
Libya - dont link it ITN ...research it, the process with Gadaffi was well in hand prior to the invasion with the pressure point being sanctions (good on George for securing but I think it would have been done regardless of Iraq)....dont believe everything in the State of the Union address.

As to whether we should pull out - no way ....we started this mess and the next 1 - 2 generations will pay the price with thousands of lives, but thats the price you pay when with others lives you play.

 

[goalpie]

Sounds like good news to me. If "the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace" is true and the troops withdraw, Iraq will be left with a situation of having a democratically elected Government and peace. What more could anyone ask for. Sounds like a successful conclusion is near. Well done to the governments and troops responsible.

HA! HA! HA!

More like a bloody civil war.

 

[IntheNet]

check on the civil war

Apparently the only folks talking about Civil War are western newspapers! No Shiite or Sunni folks, and most definately not the Kurds, are preparing for any 'civil' war... Indeed, those talking Civil War are those outside not inside Iraq...


I tend to listen more to Armed Forces reportage on the Iraq situation as they are much closer to situation than media in hotels or outside the nation. For this reason, I get a different perspective than the leftist media.

 

[London Dave]

Did we say, "Crap...those French aren't worth saving...let's let Nazism run its course!" No we didn't!

well, actually you did, until the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared war on the US a couple of days later.