Brits withdraw half of their troops. UK Report: "War on Terror" fuels Al Aaeda

[chillmonster]

Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc;_ylt=AoyKB8Lv7Di3hEW3M yzSQ5qs0NUE)

By Kate Kelland
Mon Oct 8, 8:29 AM ET

...."Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."

Britain to cut troops in Iraq (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_IRAQ?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)


By DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) -- Britain will halve its remaining troop contingent in Iraq next spring, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Monday. A British official later said they could not guarantee that any troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2008.

Brown, under fire over his decision not to call an election for this year, said Britain would lower troop levels to 2,500 by mid-2008 and redeploy logistics staff to neighboring states. The British leader was clearly hoping the announcement would help boost his popularity among a public weary of the war.

Aides had stoked election rumors for weeks, particularly as lawmakers and activists gathered for a series of political party conferences. But Brown scrapped the plans Saturday as opinion polls suggested his early wave of public support had waned.

Brown told lawmakers Monday his Iraq plan follows the success of the U.S. troop increase this summer and efforts by Iraqis to drive suspected al-Qaida militants from havens in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.

He said decisions on further cuts would be made once the reduction to 2,500 was complete, rejecting a call from opposition lawmakers to set a timetable to withdraw all British forces.

Officials said the latest troop cut would be complete by April, and that a total withdrawal of forces would be among options considered then.

"At the point where we arrive at that number next year, we shall have a much clearer idea of what our policy is going to be," a British official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "But certainly at this stage there's no guarantee they're going to be there beyond the end of (2008)."

The British presence in Iraq peaked with 46,000 troops during the March 2003 invasion. It was reduced to 18,000 that May, and 8,600 by the end of May 2004. This past May, there were about 5,500 British troops in Iraq.

Britain is already scaling back forces, and by the year's end will have 4,500 troops based mainly on the fringe of the southern city of Basra, where a power vacuum has exacerbated discord among rival Shiite groups

How is it that the UK can simply leave? They bear just as much responsibility for destroying Iraq as the United States, so how is it they can just watch US soldiers and Iraqi civilians die from the sidelines? Yes, choosing this war was a colossal mistake, and the initial planning bordered on criminal negligence; but they were in lock step then, and so should they be now. I wonder if those who still support the initial decision to invade will step up and call out Gordon Brown.

[Nieninque]

Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc;_ylt=AoyKB8Lv7Di3hEW3M yzSQ5qs0NUE)


Britain to cut troops in Iraq (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_IRAQ?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)



How is it that the UK can simply leave? They bear just as much responsibility for destroying Iraq as the United States, so how is it they can just watch US soldiers and Iraqi civilians die from the sidelines? Yes, choosing this war was a colossal mistake, and the initial planning bordered on criminal negligence; but they were in lock step then, and so should they be now. I wonder if those who still support the initial decision to invade will step up and call out Gordon Brown.

I'm sure both of them will be very vocal in the next few days.

[Khariz]

Just as much responsibility?

Look, I'm pro Iraq War, but it wasn't the U.K.'s 1337 Marines that destroyed a whole country's infrastructure in 5 days.

Remember "Shock and Awe"? I was glued to the tube for a week.

Or do you mean politically? Financially? I don't think this would have happened at all either way had the U.S. not perpetuated it (either the decisions or the military action).

I think I'm talking about something other than you are trying to address though, so I'll say this:

Yes, it's bullshit that Britain is pulling out. And yes, it will be worse under the new Prime Minister. I can't wait until the Democrats take the presidency in 2008 so that we can arbitrarily pull out too!

Fun times!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I've made it pretty clear I'm against the war and have been against it since we first went in, that being said this whole pressure to immediately withdraw is just so STUPID to me. I guess it's Britains right to withdraw when they want but again, it's just added pressure for us where I don't think it needs to be. The pressure should be on making a viable solution that isn't just "In this amount of time, we pull out these many troops."

Let's go in, destroy the infrastructure, and when our plan isn't working instead of devising a new one to actually FIX the problem let's get the hell out! Yeah, right. Not only would hang a country we destroyed out to dry, but it would also be a death sentence on people who helped out the US who would become targets and likely be slaughtered as soon as the US left by angry opposition force. What country or group would ever want the US's help after THAT sort of debacle? I know I wouldn't want to take aid from a country that after fucking things up just ran away and let the people who helped them be killed rather than staying and fixing the problem.

I disagree with the retarded justifications for us going in there in the first place- Iraq is fucked up and Bush had no business sending us there. But I feel like the response now is just as stupid and extreme- PULL OUT NOW SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. We have endangered TONS of Iraqi people who previously were likely relatively safe while living under Saddam and done so under the promise of helping them rebuild a better country. Leaving without doing SOMETHING to make an effective infrastructure and an actual better country is so apathetically sick to me. It was a mistake but not a mistake that running away from can fix.

[chillmonster]

Just as much responsibility?

Look, I'm pro Iraq War, but it wasn't the U.K.'s 1337 Marines that destroyed a whole country's infrastructure in 5 days.

Remember "Shock and Awe"? I was glued to the tube for a week.

Or do you mean politically? Financially? I don't think this would have happened at all either way had the U.S. not perpetuated it (either the decisions or the military action).

I think I'm talking about something other than you are trying to address though, so I'll say this:

Yes, it's bullshit that Britain is pulling out. And yes, it will be worse under the new Prime Minister. I can't wait until the Democrats take the presidency in 2008 so that we can arbitrarily pull out too!

Fun times!

That's the thing: nobody with any chance at the presidency is advocating an arbitrary pull out from this mess, no matter what Rush or the Republican candidates are saying. It's more likely than not Americans will be dying in that country for at least 5 more years along with tens of thousands of Iraqis. The Brits on the other hand, without whom this invasion would not have been possible, are able to wash their hands of the entire thing. By 2009 we will literally have ZERO allies in Iraq with a serious threat brewing in Iran and the Taliban returning in numbers to Afghanistan. I wonder how close to the bottom this will rank on the list of horrible presidential mistakes.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

That's the thing: nobody with any chance at the presidency is advocating an arbitrary pull out from this mess, no matter what Rush or the Republican candidates are saying. It's more likely than not Americans will be dying in that country for at least 5 more years along with tens of thousands of Iraqis. The Brits on the other hand, without whom this invasion would not have been possible, are able to wash their hands of the entire thing. By 2009 we will literally have ZERO allies in Iraq with a serious threat brewing in Iran and the Taliban returning in numbers to Afghanistan. I wonder how close to the bottom this will rank on the list of horrible presidential mistakes.

That's what concerns me the most about this. The longer we just sit here with our thumbs up our asses not making any progress, the more people die and the larger the threat from Al Qaeda is actually growing.

I don't disagree with the Brits that we have provided a good training ground for Al Qaeda operatives, and the fact that Bin Laden is likely still alive is VERY alarming to me. It's like people got so wrapped up in Saddam that they forgot he wasn't the one who orchestrated 9-11.

Part of me feels like the Brits pulling out is partially our fault, however. I mean, imagine if we were in their shoes- likely they want to help rebuild Iraq but at this moment it's endless warfare and broken systems with the Americans too busy bitching at eachother and defending the war to actually come up with a "game plan" so to speak. So I'm sure to them they're fighting in a war that in actuality they have little say over the direction of it and can't be sure when or how a resolution is going to come about. I felt near the beginning of the war that the ONLY way this was going to pan out to be okay was if Americans did the conquering and ass-kicking and left the diplomacy and rebuilding to the other countries. Maybe it doesn't sound that great to us but I really don't think that the conquerers of a country can be the ones to rebuild it. There's too much animosity and bad history there, collateral damage weighs on people's mind, etc. But we sat around so long that all the other countries have pulled out and want nothing to do with this anymore, and we've lost that avenue to reconstruct.

[Sean of the Thread]

OH NOEZ.. instead of all 3000 or so British troops left they're cutting it to 1500?

Get a grip guys and gain some perspective.

[Khariz]

OH NOEZ.. instead of all 3000 or so British troops left they're cutting it to 1500?

Get a grip guys and gain some perspective.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

[Sean of the Thread]

Sorry I just skipped to the bottom to state the obvious without reading all the shit in between.

[Stanley Burrell]

The Iraqi people need to take control of Iraq. Period. If they end up resurrecting Saddam, we can always arm Iran during Contra II.


I don't disagree with the Brits that we have provided a good training ground for Al Qaeda operatives, and the fact that Bin Laden is likely still alive is VERY alarming to me. It's like people got so wrapped up in Saddam that they forgot he wasn't the one who orchestrated 9-11.

Make no mistake that fucking Soviet-occupied Afghanistan would've 110% had its border cross over into Pakistan with more than simply strong words about "finding terrorists" if there were any OBL doppelganger back in the day-o.

[Nieninque]

...Americans did the conquering and ass-kicking...

So much for liberation

[Miss X]

This is what the majority of British people want. I'm no queen of spin, but Gordon Brown was NEVER going to call an election. The Press and David Camereon and co hyped it up so that they could then give him shit when he didn't call it.

I'm pretty sure the Government are privy to information we are not, it's about fucking time we got the hell out of there. The British Generals have agreed that it's time.

No one is really going to "call out" Gordon Brown, because the majority of politicians and ordinary Brits want our troops home. The majority of Brits were dead against the war in the first place but our PM at the time didn't have the balls to say no to the US.

[Kembal]

Look, it's pretty simple.

1. There will be no new strategy while Bush is in office. He's bet everything on the surge buying him enough time to pass it on to his successor. The Democratic Party can't cut off funding for the war because of the slim majority they have the Senate....they'd need 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster and that's not going to happen.

2. The Iraqi political leaders in the country do not want serious political reconciliation, as according to yesterday's Washington Post article. They're just manuevering right now to seize control for their sect.

It's so bad that the major Shia political parties in the Iraqi government are denouncing the U.S. for arming the Sunni tribes in the Anbar province go after Al-Qaeda in Iraq...which was the very same group that came up with the idea of attacking Shias and turning it into a civil war in the first place.

As for the British, they might as well leave. They no longer have actual control over Basra and southern Iraq: the two major Shia clans, Sadr and Hakim, have taken control, and the British troops are just casualties waiting to happen, while the Sadrs and the Hakims fight it out for leadership of the Shia.

The only solution I can see working is a federalist solution dividing Iraq up. But that's not something the U.S. can impose on Iraq....the Iraqi politicians have to agree to amend their consitution to do that. And why would they do that, when they have a shot at controlling all of Iraq, bloody as their hands might get?

[chillmonster]

If Bush Co. had any courage, and if they actually believed in the way they're handling this war; they'd say that we're doing the right thing and the Brits shouldn't have stepped in the ring unless they were ready to fight to the end. The fact that they won't is telling.

If the Gordon Brown had any courage or decency, he'd look at the carnage his country helped to set upon Iraq and feel compelled to say that the Bush administration has implemented a policy of watching US troops and Iraqi civilians die while they kick the can down the road. If he really feels they have no strategy common decency would dictate he say so.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.



Yes, that would work well. They seem to be a reasonable people that are looking for peace.

[Clove]

Yes, that would work well. They seem to be a reasonable people that are looking for peace.

Of course the principles on the other side of the table are very open to comprimises... we just won't give them that chance.