| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Britain faces humiliating Iraq withdrawal |
| 2008-12-15 |
| British Forces will leave Iraq by the end of next July under a humiliating proposal that lumps the once-valued deployment with five smaller contingents, including those of Romania, El Salvador and Estonia. Even as President Bush paid a surprise farewell visit to Baghdad yesterday to celebrate the passage of a bilateral accord with Iraq, Britain faced being only a part of a shared military pact after negotiators ran out of time to seal country-specific deals. Under the US-Iraq status of forces agreement, drawn up after nine months of heated negotiation, US forces will leave within three years. The deal for Britain and the others was described by Muwafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s National Security Adviser, as a “mini-agreement for the six entities”. The proposed legislation states that all duties performed by the contingents, which include 42 Australian officers and 200 troops from 15 Nato countries, as well as the larger British presence, must stop by the end of May. “There will be two months’ grace for the forces to leave Iraq by July 31,” Fawzi Hariri, the Iraqi Industry Minister, said. “There was no way we could have done a security agreement to the same level of detail that we had with the Americans in such a short period.” The Iraqi Government has the option to ask certain elements to remain beyond July to help with specific tasks, such as training the small Iraqi Navy. “We believe this is a workable document and we discussed it at the Cabinet level,” Mr Hariri told The Times. Ministers vote on the deal tomorrow. If passed, it will go before the Iraqi parliament later in the week. Grouping Britain with contingents such as Estonia, which has only 36 soldiers in Iraq, and El Salvador, with a mere 200, is a far cry from the start of the invasion when British Forces were second in importance only to those of the US. However, the pact will provide much needed legal cover for 4,100 British troops, largely based in southern Iraq, beyond the end of the year when the UN mandate authorising the presence of all foreign forces expires. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 How well would nation building have worked in Germany if Nazism was encouraged, even enshrined in the constitution? Until our leaders are willing to confront islam is the problem, all we are doing is building exquisite, extremely expensive castles in the sand. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-12-15 21:22 |
| #10 ION TOPIX > SOME US TROOPS WILL STAY IN [select] IRAQI CITIES. Reminds me of NOSTRADAMUS > British Cdr-Gen. "China" Gordon versus "the Mahdi" in SIEGE/BATTLE OF KHARTOUM. Lest we fergit, IT WAS GORDON'S CHOPPED OFF HEAD WHICH FINALLY ENDED UP ON THE END OF A LONG POLE, IN DISPLAY BEFORE THE MAHDI'S ARMIES. Again, MUSLIM/ISLAMIST MIL HISTORY > more likely than not, the Islamists will return to refight the Battle/War for Iraq, where their mil history suggests they'll end up kicking and beheading Enemy = US-Western Infidel hinies all over the place in "second-time around" new victory??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-12-15 19:19 |
| #9 While I agree we can't afford it anymore, nation building worked well post WWII. It seems the target, muslim nations, are incompatible with western civilization and hence the nation building is wasted on them. Oh well, they had their chance. Why are there no muslims on Star Trek? It's based in the future. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2008-12-15 19:10 |
| #8 Amen and Amen! Well said Jolutch. Unfortunately the model was constructed after WWII, Germany and Japan. "Nation building" is a costly undertaking indeed but what a wonderful method for creating the legitimacy of human needs based 'feel good' and diplomatic generosity. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-12-15 15:22 |
| #7 The reality is that neither Britain nor anyone else in the West--including the U.S.--can afford to indulge in the kind of "regime change" Iraq received. Next time, it won't be a case of "depose the tyrant and install new and good government," it will be "blow them to Hell and let the few starving survivors weep, wail and gnash their teeth in the rubble prior to their inevitable deaths from radiation." To be blunt, the latter actually sends a much stronger message than the former. One example of that and there won't be a need for a second. |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-12-15 15:13 |
| #6 Humiliating? That's a little excessive. It would be humiliating if they had set out to conquer Iraq and take home plunder, but were driven out from the country by the natives. As it is, they performed well both during the invasion and the occupation, and no longer have to pour British taxpayer funds down the drain in Iraq. We, on the other hand, have to feed a few hundred billion more dollars into Iraq for the next several years. The Brits should count themselves lucky - Uncle Sam will have to swallow the entire crap sandwich by his lonesome. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-12-15 15:01 |
| #5 What is that photo of GB? Thanks. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2008-12-15 12:15 |
| #4 Our revels now are ended |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-12-15 10:45 |
| #3 Britain should be embarassed by the stae of their country instead |
| Posted by: sinse 2008-12-15 10:01 |
| #2 "Softly, softly" goes gently into that good night. |
| Posted by: William Marcy Tweed 2008-12-15 08:37 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-12-15 02:18 |