The first article that I quoted, saying the target for handover was the end of 2006 was a press conference featuring Tony Blair and Nouri Al-Maliki. I think Maliki would be considered part of the Government of Iraq...
"Mar22: He [Dep MoD] said Iraqi commanders in southern Iraq were “surprised by the British announcing they would pull out 1,600 soldiers from Basra,” and responded by moving forward by several months a timetable to bring a new brigade of about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers into the southern city."
I note you didn't source this quote, but when I google it, it seems that you have only partially quoted what the story and the Iraqi Defence Minister actually said to give it a more negative spin.
"Iraq's defense minister said Wednesday his commanders were surprised when Britain recently announced plans to withdraw some of its troops from Iraq, but that his country's forces will be ready to replace them.
.....During his news conference at the Iraqi Embassy in London, Jassim said 2007 will be a crucial year for the ongoing training of Iraq's army so it can operate independently, without the routine support it now requires from coalition soldiers, artillery and air forces.
He said Iraqi commanders in southern Iraq were "surprised by the British announcing they would pull out 1,600 soldiers from Basra," and responded by moving forward by several months a timetable to bring a new brigade of about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers into the southern city.
But Jassim also said Blair's government has made it clear that "the departure of the British is dependent on the readiness of the Iraqis."
Of course this was just in reaction to an initial drawdown of forces, not that handover of Basra. That was actually delayed from April until September:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6986536.stm
"Brig Bashall, the commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, said that after the six-month Operation Sinbad to impose security on Basra was finished in April "we could have come out and done the transition completely".
The decision to stay on longer was a result of "political strategy being played out at highest level," he added.
'Forces ready'
A spokesman for the MoD said the handover took place only once Iraqi forces had been fully trained.
He added: "The decision to hand over Basra Palace was part of a conditions-based transition, developed in consultation with the Iraqi government and our coalition partners.
"We handed Basra Palace over this month only when the conditions were right and the Iraqi forces were ready to take over.
"The government of Iraq decided in May it wanted to keep Basra Palace, and it then took time to form and train the Iraqi Palace Protection Force to the point that it could take over Basra Palace."
Like I said, the UK forces reductions are faster than the IA expected. The 14th was not scheduled to be formed until mid-2008. Not by GoI/MoD, MNF-I or MNSTC-I. Forces are being diverted. They have to divert combat units from combat zones to deal with the criminal problems in Basrah. The Iraqi MoD elements that are willing to comment make it clear that they did not expect the UK draw-down to be this fast.
The UK politicians are saying Basrah is ready.
The Iraqi Army is saying they are not.
Which is more authoritative about the IA? Some politicians in London or the IA?
I have been expecting UK pull out for over a year. To fill out forces in Afghanistan. UK just does not have a large enough Army for it’s commitments. That is what happens when you take too much of a peace-dividend. Same thing happened to the US which is why we are expanding our military...