U.K. Memo Cites Plans For Troop Reduction

By Glenn Frankel and Josh White
Washington Post Foreign Service
Mon Jul 11, 1:00 AM ET



LONDON, July 10 -- The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from    Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister    Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.


Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but said that no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a    Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.


The undated memo, which was reported in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."


While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable.    President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date, citing concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.


The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."


Such debates contribute to contingency planning, according to U.S. officials, and there can be several different scenarios under consideration at the same time. A rapid reduction in troops would depend on the success of several political processes in Iraq and of the emerging Iraqi security forces.


While U.S. commanders have praised the development of the Iraqi army and police forces, training and equipping the units has taken longer than expected. None of the provinces in Iraq is solely protected by Iraqi forces, and significant decreases expected in U.S. troop strength have not materialized.


"At any given time, there are a number of plans, for all sorts of developments, good or bad," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman. Carpenter declined to comment specifically about the British memo because Pentagon officials had not seen it. "The U.S. leadership for some time has been on record stating that our drawdown and eventual withdrawal is based on a conditions-based strategy."


Many analysts consider the tenacity of the Iraqi insurgency to be the major impediment to troop withdrawals, although U.S. officials have heralded recent successes in quelling violence.


Part of the overall reduction, said the memo, would be a drop in total British forces by mid-2006 from 8,500 to around 3,000. The change, the memo added, could save Britain half of its current cost of around $1.7 billion per year.


"None of this, however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan," the memo cautioned. "There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way."


Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, said the British government had "made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed.


"No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi Security Forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "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."


British forces have been assigned to four relatively peaceful provinces around the southern city of Basra, but 89 British troops have died since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The war has little support among the British public, and officials hope to pull forces out of the area as soon as is practical. Blair has insisted no troops will be withdrawn until Iraqi forces can take over.


British commanders hope to hand over control of two provinces to Iraqi forces by October 2005, according to the memo, and to hand over control of two more provinces by April 2006.


White reported from Washington.



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050711/ts_washpost/u_k__memo_cites_plans_for_troop_reduction

thoughts?  Does this answer questions?

i like how this has been ignored

Good Lord, does this represent an exit plan or just a bit more of Rummyworld self dilusion?

The differences in Queen's and American Engllish fascinate me...
Chips / Fries,
Bonnet / Hood,
Lift / Elevator
Lorry / Truck
Secret -- UK Eyes Only / For Immediate Press Release.     ::)  


"Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006,"

...And our track record with making correct assumptions regarding time tables, troop requirements and ease of transition in Iraq is such that one might wonder if Miss Cleo is on the payroll.  ;)    

I was interested in what Blair, Reid and the Pentagon had to say about the content of the memo...

Blair Denies Fast Troop Withdrawal Plan
Sydney Morning Herald - Jul 11 7:38 PM
"The British government has not decided to withdraw troops from Iraq,"


Reid Plays Down Iraq Troop Withdrawal Report
Guardian Unlimited - Jul 11 4:05 PM
"No political judgment to withdraw troops had been made"

US Denies British Memo On Troop Withdrawals
Deccan Herald - Jul 11 7:41 AM
"The Pentagon has denied knowledge of a leaked British memo indicating withdrawal of its troops in Iraq by early 2006."

(I tried to reach Miss Cleo for comment, but she has, thus far, failed to respond to my telepathic messages.  ;D )

The differences in Queen's and American Engllish fascinate me...
Chips / Fries,
Bonnet / Hood,
Lift / Elevator
Lorry / Truck
Secret -- UK Eyes Only / For Immediate Press Release.    ::) 


"Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006,"

...And our track record with making correct assumptions regarding time tables, troop requirements and ease of transition in Iraq is such that one might wonder if Miss Cleo is on the payroll.  ;)   

I was interested in what Blair, Reid and the Pentagon had to say about the content of the memo...

Blair Denies Fast Troop Withdrawal Plan
Sydney Morning Herald - Jul 11 7:38 PM
"The British government has not decided to withdraw troops from Iraq,"


Reid Plays Down Iraq Troop Withdrawal Report
Guardian Unlimited - Jul 11 4:05 PM
"No political judgment to withdraw troops had been made"

US Denies British Memo On Troop Withdrawals
Deccan Herald - Jul 11 7:41 AM
"The Pentagon has denied knowledge of a leaked British memo indicating withdrawal of its troops in Iraq by early 2006."

(I tried to reach Miss Cleo for comment, but she has, thus far, failed to respond to my telepathic messages.  ;D )






I don't know if Rummy, Condie et al have been consulting Miss Cleo, but they might as well have been, or better yet Nancy's astrologer.

but Im sure that if this was another Downing Street Memo none of you would be questioning it. 

but Im sure that if this was another Downing Street Memo none of you would be questioning it. 


What is it you think we're questioning about it?    Sometimes a memo is just a memo... that's what I see here, and I am taking it at face value.  I suppose I could try to read a bunch of conspiracy theory crap into it -- but to what end?    For my part, this memo doesn't raise any questions, it doesn't answer any questions, it doesn't address any of my concerns... it does, however, add to one. 

There's very little in it that we haven't heard, in some form or fashion, from official sources and/or third party speculation, already.  I do take their plans and the time-tables for executing those plans with a grain of salt -- with good reason (hence my Miss Cleo joke) -- and from the sounds of the official responses to the memo, so does everyone concerned, on both sides of the pond, for exactly the same reasons:   nobody knows, yet, what the situation over there or what the best course of action will be when those dates come to pass.  Are they trying to plan ahead and proposing possible strategies, including possible exit strategies?  Of course.  I've assumed that all along and I'd be shocked and horrified if it had been proven that they weren't.  Am I glad to hear they're thinking about exit strategies?  As glad as I've been every other time it's come up... but just as the dates tentatively alluded to in the press, previously, have come and gone, I'm not holding my breath that these more specifically proposed dates won't come and go without an exit strategy in or clearly nearing execution.   I hope things do go well and we can start withdrawals even sooner than hoped... I've hoped that from day one and I'll continue to hope that.       
 
The only thing that really concerns me about this memo is that I shouldn't have seen any portion of it.  Whether I like that we're at war in Iraq, why we're at war in Iraq or how things are going over there doesn't change that we ARE at war in Iraq and that both we and the UK (among a handful of others)  have very real, living, breathing troops on the ground, there, whose lives are on the line.  This is NOT the time for security to be so loose -- ESPECIALLY in the name of something as unimportant in the grand scheme of things as politics or the public image of politicians -- that a memo clearly marked "SECRET" exchanged between two high ranking officials in regards to Iraq war strategy (whether planned or proposed) should be leaked to the world press.   It compromises our position in the war effort... and ANYone, in ANY party or political position, in ANY nation, who puts politics or image (or anything) ahead of something as important as that is a disgrace and a traitor -- to his/her political party (if applicable), to his/her country, to his/her fellow countrymen, to his/her nation's allies in the war effort and certainly to each of the men and women who may have been put further into harm's way or kept in harm's way longer.   

I didn't get giddy over Downing Street or any of the other things that have come to light that have confirmed or added to any of my grave concerns about this war or about the current administration.  I haven't pounded my desk and shouted triumphantly "Aha! I knew it!"  Instead, I've  felt sick to my stomach, grieved the loss of another piece of the nation I so love... and because my love of country is woven inextricably into every part of everything I am, have ever been or will ever be, I have felt another piece of myself die with her, each time.

If you really think I, and others of my political and/or partisan ilk, did not question Downing Street or that I initially "ignored"  your post about this memo because it didn't fit into some imaginary partisan-first-the-rest-be-darned viewpoint I'm alleged to hold by virtue of being an active member of a political party, then you know nothing about me or my ilk.  This isn't about politics or party and, most importantly, I don't want proof I'm right about the things that concern me -- I want proof that I'm wrong. 

You cannot begin to fathom just how desperately I yearn to be proven wrong, to feel the fool over the concerns I've had... to listen to the news and feel my patriotic pride swell to bursting in my heart, again... to be freed from the bondage of my growing fears about the future of my great and beloved nation and to be secure in the knowledge that my President and his administration are putting our best interests first and foremost in everything they propose, do and decide.   I have an unrelenting, gnawing hunger in the pit of my soul for it.