Iraq to take over the south's security: deputy PM (Aussie, Brit, & Japanese pulling troops!)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | June 16, 2006 - 7:17PM

[dead]

Iraq's deputy prime minister says Iraq has an agreement to take over security responsibilities from Australian, British and Japanese forces in southern Iraq this month.

Deputy Prime Minister Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie was responding to a Japanese news report that Australia, British and Japanese troops will transfer security responsibilities in southern Iraq to Iraqi authorities next week, and soon withdraw from the area.

"There is an agreement to take over the security responsibilities from the British, Australian and Japanese forces in southern Iraq during this month," al-Zubaie said.

"There is such a plan and such news is not based on nothing. We hope that the Iraqi security forces will live up to their duties there. It is the dream of all Iraqis that our forces will handle security issues all over Iraq."

At a defence meeting of the three countries last week in London, British officials told their counterparts that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will announce the transfer of security authority in southern Iraq next Tuesday, Kyodo News agency reported, citing coalition sources.

London will then announce the pullout of its forces from the southern province of Al Muthanna, and Tokyo and Australia will follow with similar announcements, Kyodo said.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is expected to announce a pullout by Japan from the southern city of Samawah as early as next Wednesday, Japanese government and ruling coalition sources said.

Australia is expected to announce plans to pull its forces out of the area the same day.

The withdrawal of Japanese troops is likely to begin later this month and may be completed by the end of July, the sources said.

Officials in the Iraqi prime minister's media office said they could not confirm or deny the report.

Al-Zubaie said he knew nothing about plans for such an announcement and could provide no other details.

Australia has around 460 troops in southern Iraq, where they have been protecting Japanese forces engaged in rebuilding efforts since 2004.

Some Australian troops are expected to be redeployed to the basic training centre at Tallil, near An Nasiriyah in Dhi Qar Province, as well as the Counter Insurgency Academy at Taji, near Baghdad, training Iraqi and coalition troops in tactics to defeat the insurgency.

AP/Kyodo

[SevenMinusOne]

You don't work in the media do you? Everyone knows that if foreign troops are there, it's bad news because it means Iraqis aren't standing up for themselves (from which you can conclude that they don't care about their own security, therefore we might as well pull out). Meanwhile, if foreign troops pull out, it's also bad news because it means the Coalition is breaking apart and Bush is losing support, and therefore we should pull out.

Either way, it's bad news.

You've nailed it - (the MSM is pathetic).

[BoBToMatoE]

there has been a lot of good news ignored by the media lately - especially the document from z man saying that aq was getting its hiney kicked and it was on its last legs.

[isaiah55version11_0]

Great insight.

[SamAdams_Lite]

Karl Rove had the events of the last 10 days planned out months ago as the democrats fall into another Rovesque labyrinth.

This ought get the lib lurkers steamed up.

[CedarDave]

Robert Novak wrote that Bush will be recorded as one of our most courageous Presidents. It is relatively easy for a leader to fight a war with domestic support behind him. It is much harder to defeat a foreign foe while having to battle traitors in your midst as well.

Novak may be getting old, eccentric and maybe slightly senile, but I certainly agree with him and hope he's right.

[cake_crumb]

Gosh, but Iraqi security forces aren't TRAINED, they're not PREPARED, Bush made "Serious Blunders" in Iraq, yada, yada, squawk, squawk!!

[FreedomNeocon]

yes the Iraqi bloggers in the south were complaining for a while now that little theocratic militias were running around enforcing quasi-shria law. Intimidating women, and shop owners and all kinds of things.

The Brits were happy to have the 'calm' infiltration of Iran while we were toughing it out in Fallujia, but now its all come to front.

Its good news though, because Malaki has promised (and the people want) a heavy hand taken to the militias, and specifically in Basra. New York is to LA, as Baghdad is to Basra, so its a tough job

But with Iraqi's in the lead, alot of the 'dirty work' that has to be done can be done much easier.

That means you mookie!

[Chgogal]

"The Brits were happy to have the 'calm' infiltration of Iran while we were toughing it out in Fallujia, but now its all come to front."

Why would the Brits be happy about that? Please explain Britain's motive to allow Iran in without a fight? This is a friendly line of questioning. It is obvious that what you said occurred, I simply do not understand why Britain would allow this especially in light of the nasty criticism of that one British Officer. Thank you.

[proud_yank]

Sounds good to me. Compare post WWII rebuilding efforts in Japan (US "Go it Alone") to rebuilding efforts in Europe with everyone.

BTW, I heard John Kerry had plan.

[FreedomNeocon]

For a long time, back in 2004 when we were dealing with Fallujia and Mookie and his stupid uprisings, Basra and the south was 'very calm' and 'very quiet'.

I was interested why that might be and read up on it. There are several stories written on it, many blogs documented how Iran was infiltrating and quietly setting up bases of operations and gaining influence.

They kept their heads down, but worked behind the scenes to gain power, and weight with local clerics (if they didn't supplement the area with their own). Lately they roll with militias and enforce what sharia they can get away with. They beat some women to death about 8 months ago, there were protests and alot on it from healingiraq.

There was a NYT columnist that wrote about it from Basra and was killed a few days later (I think it was NYT).

Anyway.. why did the Brits let them do it?

Not questioning their courage, but it was a tough deicion. Things were quiet... and for the most part (at least at first) they weren't doing anything illegal... certainly not taking up arms like was going on in Fallujia and they wanted to leave 'well enough' alone.

[Hillsdale Guy]

So let's see...

Zarqawi is dead.

His memos indicate that we're winning and they're desperate.

The Iraqis are taking over the security at least in part of the country.

Iraqi documents being translated (the Iraqi Venona) show that Saddam was connected to terrorists and did have WMDs.

IOW, whatever Dems say about this war is a LIE. They LIE. They know better and they say it anyway.

[MizSterious]

Oh, no, another dismal failure and proof that the President should have had a good (Democrat) plan for winning the war. (Must I add the sarcasm tag? Oh, alright--/sarcasm)

[shield]

The pullout begins. This was President Bushes trip to Iraq. The US will be next. Not a complete pullout but just watch and huge exit.

[MizSterious]

traderrob6, surely you know by now that the reason they're so anxious for us to call a retreat is that if we stay much longer, the war will be WON, definitively, and that will make all their squawking and clucking sound like so much chicken, er, feed. They want us out fast, so Iraq can be lost and they can blame it on the President. Too bad for them it's not working, LOL!

[xzins]

WOW!

We truly ARE WINNING!

THIS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE TO DATE says we are winning.

Tony Blair cannot risk failure in Iraq; therefore, his intelligence agencies clearly believe it's winding down.

[AgThorn]

Does this mean that the Brits, Aussies and Japanese will no longer have a role in Iraq? i.e. is this all of their investment in the country, in the south?

Will their troops be redeployed north so the US can share in this 'reduction in forces'? I mean we do seem to have the lion's share of the troops over there. It would make sense to keep our 'aliance' still active with us as well, rather than having them leave completely.

But other than all of the above questions, this is overall good news.

[AgThorn]

Does this mean that the Brits, Aussies and Japanese will no longer have a role in Iraq? i.e. is this all of their investment in the country, in the south?

Will their troops be redeployed north so the US can share in this 'reduction in forces'? I mean we do seem to have the lion's share of the troops over there. It would make sense to keep our 'alliance' still active with us as well, rather than having them leave completely.

But other than all of the above questions, this is overall good news.

[AgThorn]

Iraqi documents being translated (the Iraqi Venona) show that Saddam was connected to terrorists and did have WMDs.

Do we have a treasure trove of links here in Freepers on this topic? I still get many questions from leftist friends on this topic and have to bone up a bit on my reading material on this subject.

Also, a lot of the left are constantly making statements about Al Quida not being in Iraq till after we entered. I think this is really bogus thinking and wanted to get more ammo to counter.

[Soul Seeker]

news just keeps getting worse for those that hate America and her troops.

[naturalman1975]

Does this mean that the Brits, Aussies and Japanese will no longer have a role in Iraq? i.e. is this all of their investment in the country, in the south?

No, it doesn't - at least not for Britain and Australia.

The troops involved in this operation represent only a relatively small proportion of British troops in Iraq. So even if they are withdrawn rather than redeployed, the UK will still have a significant troop presence in Iraq.

Australia's troops in this operation do represent a significant proportion of Australian troops in theatre, but by no means all Australian troops in theatre, and at least some of these troops will be redeploying to, among other things, assist with the training of the Iraqi army - which Australia already has troops committed to.

I believe this does represent Japan's major contribution and so they may be all but withdrawing now that the job they were sent in to do is done.

That doesn't mean they may not be back though - Australia withdrew nearly all troops from Afghanistan for a while, and then sent them back in when there was work for them to do again.