Posted on 07/09/2005 6:52:06 PM PDT by nypokerface
LONDON (Reuters) - A leaked document from Britain's Defense Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.
The memo, reportedly written by Defense Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.
"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.
The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.
"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said.
The United States is training Iraqi forces to take over the country's defense in the face of an insurgency involving allies of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and foreign militants allied to al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But critics say Iraqi troops are not ready to take charge of security in their country.
"There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favor a relatively bold reduction in force numbers and the multi-national force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious," read the memo.
Reid said in a statement in response the article:
"We have made it absolutely plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decision on the future force posture of UK forces has been taken.
"We have always said it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases.
"We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies. This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. This is prudent planning."
The United States and Britain have the two largest contingents of foreign forces in Iraq and the memo described the impact a reduction of U.S. and British forces might have on other allied troops.
"The Japanese will be reluctant to stay if protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position may also be uncertain."
The memo said reducing British troop levels in Iraq would save about 1 billion pounds ($1.74 billion) per year. ($1=.5757 Pound)
When will these jerks stop leaking info? What is wrong with these people? Is anyone loyal to anything? Geez.
Stupid.
(YAWN)
And you think this wasn't leaked now because it'll help Blair? I do. There's nothing unusual about planning for the withdrawal with we all anticipate will occur in about a year.
This 'memo' could have been 'leaked' on purpose by the Pentagon for all we know. There's nothing earth-shattering about this. The Pentagon has contingency plans for just about everything (I hope). The more the Iraqis get their military trained, the less need there will be for a multi-national force. That's the plan, it's what we've been working toward all along. We have to take the training wheels off and take our hand off the back of the bike sometime.
"We have made it absolutely plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decision on the future force posture of UK forces has been taken."
That's all I need to know.
We already have this story on freerepublic
The exit-strategy of this war must not be dictated by budget. If we don't want this war to be "another Viet Nam" then we at all costs have to avoid the temptation of an too-early withdrawal.
Still, the Iraqi security forces are going to have to step up to the plate at some point, and they probably won't as long as we are the front line. 66,000 troops are a sufficient rapid reaction force to back them up, if they are willing to fight. If they aren't, then the current 140,000 isn't enough, as it sometimes appears.
But the exact numbers must be dictated by facts on the ground, and not by budget numbers back home.
There is another issue, though; mid-term elections are coming up, and no doubt there is a need to claim a victory for political reasons. If the president can't hold or increase his support in Congress, the war may be over in a very Viet Nam-like manner. So I can understand, I think, the game they are playing. Start cutting troops, claim the victory, get through the elections, but leaving enough troops behind to hopefully hold it all together.
President Bush said during his speech on June 28th that our commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom is unwavering. If people haven't learned that this President says what he means and deos what he says, then they are just stupid. "Secret documents"? Horse hockey.
If this memo is true and we are out of Iraq before it is truly stabilized I will be one extremely angry individual. Why are we being told that we are staying in Iraq until Iraqis can defend themselves?! That won't happen within six months!! Whatever happened to staying the course until the terrorists in Iraq are beaten?!!!
Again, if true, chalk this up as a victory for the terrorists and liberals.
Hey, this is series bidness.
I've got a memo to leak.
Wait, maybe it's a memo to take a leak.
What ever.
I'm sure, though, that Kinko's and CBS are involved.
LVM
The Brits need to get their act together. This memo is only going to give hope to the insurgents that they're "winning."
A leaked memo? Which reporter wrote this one. It has been reported by both the US and Iraq that we would start reducing forces as the Iraqi's assumed control.
IMO, the US can't clearly keep this level of forces in Iraq long-term, and I doubt the Iraqi army will ever be very good. I expect the Shiites in Iraq to turn to Iran when push comes to shove- some kind of security agreement where they invite in Iranian troops. It's their sovereign right to do so, whether we like it or not. And I'd just as soon the situation get stabalized however it needs to be done so our military can move on to other things.
"Fake but Accurate"
That is the new (Dan Rather)standard on "memos" that come from our trusted media.
This is Bullsh&t plain and simple.
Bush has earned enough credibility with me for me to think that any cut and run memos coming from Reuters are either spun or written by the reporters themselves.
Dont believe the hype!
Facts don't matter. It's the intent that counts. It's OK to distort a "leaked" memo if it adds another "issue." The "issue" is not the issue. Issues are weapons.
That's the way the left works says David Horowitz.
I hope not. If OIF ends with Iraq as an Iranian puppet, it can't be seen as anything but a defeat for the United States. And IMHO it would also mean the end of the GOP.
Not that I'm predicting that outcome. Just saying it's just about the worst-case scenario.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.