| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq urges UK, US to maintain troops |
| 2007-05-23 |
| Iraq urged Washington and incoming British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Monday to stand firm against domestic political pressures and maintain troop numbers in Iraq despite ongoing militia and insurgent violence. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said progress was being made in Iraq since the latest security crackdown began in mid-February, but it was important there were no signs of weakness with coalition forces, including those from Australia. He said Brown, who will take over from Tony Blair as prime minister in late June, had been a supporter of the military mission in Iraq and the Iraqi minister did not expect any significant changes under his leadership. "We hope there wouldn't be any changes, or any dramatic changes. We understand the realities of British politics," Zebari, in Australia for talks with Downer and Prime Minister John Howard, told reporters at a joint news conference with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in Canberra. He is in Australia for talks with Downer and Prime Minister John Howard. "The forthcoming Prime Minister Brown has also been supportive of Iraqi democracy, of the mission, and I believe it's very important there shouldn't be weaknesses within the coalition because these are crucial times." Australia has about 1,500 troops in and around Iraq and the troop deployment will be a major issue at elections later in the year. The opposition centre-left Labor Party promises to withdraw frontline forces if it wins power. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #4 Verlaine, You probably have some knowledge of this: when British contingent is totally gone, will control of southern Iraq be ceded to Sadr/iranian elements ? How does this make our supply routes more susceptible to attacks ? I know we devote considerable troops to surveil and cover the supply lines now, but if the regional control is totally in Sadr, et al, hands does this create a much more difficult situation ? |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-23 10:32 |
| #3 The alternatives to the British and U.S. presence are bad and worse. Al-Sadr is waiting in the wings to have an Shiite-dominated government (with Iran meddling), civil war, or a Taliban-like haven for terrorists. Al-Sadr is betting his allies, the dhemmicrits (or AKA surrendercrats) will have their way. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-23 10:14 |
| #2 I'd bet Brown still folds, and even if there's no dramatic withdrawal, what seem to be largely ineffectual approaches will remain the norm in the south. Of course with the UK's very slim presence down there, there may not be much choice. It's more "what you do with the troops" than "not enough troops" - but that later issue becomes the main one at certain levels. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-05-23 01:41 |
| #1 I agree with you, Zebari. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-05-23 00:03 |