Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

Also see below:     
Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half    [

    Even the British Are Leaving Iraq
    The Los Angeles Times | Editorial

    Tuesday 09 October 2007

With the 'coalition of the willing' breathing its last, the US should take note of how to form a realistic exit strategy.

    The "coalition of the willing" is over. One by one, its members have ceded the bloodstained ground to the battling Iraqis and the unyielding U.S. president. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision Monday to halve the vestigial British military force in Basra was inevitable; backing the U.S. in Iraq has become a political albatross for governments all over the world.

    Washington had always exaggerated the strength of the coalition, which once numbered 34 countries. But Spain and New Zealand pulled out troops in 2004; the Netherlands, Hungary, Singapore, Norway and Ukraine left in 2005, followed by Japan and Italy in 2006. Georgia and Poland, which desperately need U.S. goodwill as a bulwark against a resurgent Russia, still maintain a symbolic presence.

    But Britain is our special ally, and so its decision to bail out is momentous. British forces, once more than 45,000 strong, will be cut from the current 5,000 to 2,500, with no promise to stay beyond the spring. Whitehall and the White House attempted to portray the move as made possible by the success of the U.S. troop "surge." In fact, it was made essential by Brown's vulnerability on the war issue. More ominously, it represents a repudiation of the Bush administration's argument that stability in Iraq is of vital importance to the entire Western world.

    Given the series of terror attacks in Britain by Islamic fundamentalists, it is significant that the Brown government sees no existential threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq and is willing to outsource the job to the Americans. The remaining British troops are to focus on training and "overwatch" of the Iraqi security forces.

    Does this mean Basra is now calm and secure? Hardly. The strategic province has been riddled by Shiite-on-Shiite violence that has little to do with ideology and plenty to do with who controls lucrative smuggling, as well as the port through which much of Iraq's oil moves. Basra is nowhere near as dangerous as Baghdad - except for those caught in the crossfire of the gangland-style wars on the waterfront, the victims of political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and crime mafias.

    So the British will not leave behind a peaceful Basra, but they are nonetheless right to leave it. The United States should take note and recognize that it is a delusion to believe that any foreign occupier can stop Iraqi factions hellbent on fighting for power. We owe the Iraqis our best efforts at mediation, but to insist on stability as a prerequisite for withdrawal is to commit to indefinite and fruitless military occupation.

    Go to Original

    Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half
    By Jane Perlez
    The New York Times

    Tuesday 09 October 2007

    London - Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that he would remove half of the 5,000 British troops in Iraq by next spring, and left open the strong possibility that all British soldiers would leave Iraq by the end of 2008.

    Mr. Brown said the cuts were possible because of what he described as the progress made in training Iraqi security forces. He described the situation in Basra in southern Iraq, where the British troops are based, as "calmer."

    Since President Bush has made clear that American troops will remain heavily committed in Iraq at least through his administration's end in January 2009, it appears that the tight alliance on Iraq forged between Mr. Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair, and Washington is fraying. Indeed, a hallmark of Mr. Brown's three months as prime minister has been the relative distance he has established with the American president.

    The timetable of reductions appears to fit neatly into the calculus of a British general election that is now expected to be held in 2009. Britain's role as America's largest military partner has been highly unpopular among voters, and as Mr. Brown spoke, thousands of protesters gathered outside Parliament chanting slogans calling for immediate withdrawal.

    Mr. Brown visited British troops stationed at their base outside Basra last week, and announced then that 1,000 troops would be going home.

    But that declaration, apparently aimed at a possible general election next month, backfired after Mr. Brown was accused of playing politics. It also turned out that some of the troops he described as being withdrawn were already home, and others had already been announced as heading back.

    In his formal statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown said a decision would be made in the spring as to how long the reduced force of 2,500 would remain in Iraq.

    At a briefing at the Foreign Office after Mr. Brown's statement, a senior British official said of the 2,500 troops that "there was no guarantee they will be there beyond the end of 2008." The official said Britain was on a "glide path" of irreversible reductions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity under Foreign Office rules.

    In his response to Mr. Brown in Parliament, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, seemed to sum up the content of Mr. Brown's statement, saying, "Now the troops are coming home."

    Though Mr. Brown pronounced himself satisfied with the security situation in Basra, others said the British were leaving behind a lawless, violent place.

    Toby Dodge, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the Iranian influence in southern Iraq would only increase as the British scaled back. The Iraqi police around Basra have been "heavily infiltrated by Islamic militia," Mr. Dodge said.

    In essence, he said, the British had been "driven out by Islamic radicals with nothing more than rocket-propelled grenades and mortars."

    Explaining his rationale, Mr. Brown told Parliament, "The Iraqis are now able to take responsibility for the security themselves." He described a two-phase process of handing over responsibility for security in Basra Province, where the British have been based since the war's start.

    It would start with British forces training and mentoring Iraqi security forces, securing supply routes to the Iranian border and providing backup to local security forces. In the second phase, starting in the spring of 2008, British troops would retain a more limited ability to intervene by force, the prime minister said.

    The troop level would be reduced from the approximately 5,000 now in Basra to 4,500 and then to 4,000, and then to 2,500 by spring, Mr. Brown said.

    At the Foreign Office briefing, the senior British official said the drawdown of British troops, including the reduction to 2,500, had been discussed in detail with the American commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus. "It is a number with which General Petraeus is content," the official said.

    The 2,500 British troops in the final phase of the British deployment would be stationed outside the city of Basra at the Basra Air Station, and they would be almost completely involved in instructing the trainers of two divisions of Iraqi soldiers, the official said.

    About 500 British troops, serving support roles to those still in Iraq, would be based in a neighboring country, the official said. He indicated that those support troops would be based in Kuwait.

    In determining the size of the reduction of the British troops, Mr. Brown has had to deal with three constituencies: the British electorate; the British Army, whose commanders have complained about the Iraq deployment stretching the military too thin; and the White House.

    Despite statements by the British that the Pentagon was satisfied, Mr. Dodge said he believed that the "White House is deeply uneasy" about the decision. He cited remarks by Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff and an architect of the American "surge," who has expressed frustration at the disengagement of British forces in Basra.

    In his statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown also sought to defuse an outcry over the future of Iraqi civilians who have worked with the British troops. Those Iraqis who have worked alongside the British for more than 12 months would be eligible for aid and emigration to other countries, possibly including Britain, he said.

    At a news conference at 10 Downing Street before his statement to the House of Commons, Mr. Brown was pummeled with questions about why he allowed speculation over an election announcement to reach a fever pitch before backing away from calling an election.

    "Yes, I did consider holding an election," Mr. Brown said. "Yes, I looked at it."

    But in the end, he said he followed his "first instinct" to take more time to show voters his vision for the country, particularly in housing, education and health.

    The British news media reported Monday that Mr. Brown probably would have won a November election, but the current majority of more than 60 seats would most likely have shrunk substantially.

    The surveys showed the electorate to be volatile after both the Labor Party and the Conservative Party held their conferences.

    Mr. Brown said Monday that an election was "not likely" in 2008. He must call an election by 2010.