Brown Announces Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, Says Troop Reductions Have Made Basra ‘Calmer’
Brown Announces Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, Says Troop Reductions Have Made Basra ‘Calmer’
In a speech to the British Parliament this morning, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he will cut troop levels in Iraq to 2,500 in early 2008, trimming the force by nearly half. “Britain has around 5,000 troops based mainly at an air base camp on the fringe of the southern city of Basra.”
Brown explained that since British forces “handed over our base in Basra City in early September, the present security situation has been calmer.” As evidence, he noted, “In the last month, there have been five indirect fire attacks on Basra Air Station compared with 87 in July.”
Indeed, Reuters reported last week, “Residents of Iraq’s southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.”
Given the success of the withdrawal to date, Brown announced that the British would proceed with the next phase of redeployment:
The next important stage in delivering our strategy is to hand over security to the Iraqis, and it is to move from a combat role in the rest of Basra province to overwatch, which will itself have two distinct stages.
In the first, the British forces that remain in Iraq will have the following tasks: training and mentoring the Iraqi army and police force, securing supply routes and policing the Iran-Iraq border, and the ability to come to the assistance of the Iraqi security forces when called upon.
Then in the spring of next year, and guided as always by the advice of military commanders, we plan to move to a second stage of overwatch where the coalition would maintain a more limited re- intervention capacity and where the main focus will be on training and mentoring. […]
And, subject of course to conditions on the ground, we plan from next spring to reduce force numbers in southern Iraq to a figure of 2,500.
Watch it:
UPDATE: ThinkProgress noted last week that the White House has been attacking the British for its withdrawal, claiming “British forces have performed poorly” in Iraq.
Transcript:
BROWN: Since we handed over our base in Basra City in early September, the present security situation has been calmer. Indeed, in the last month, there have been five indirect fire attacks on Basra Air Station compared with 87 in July.
And while the four southern provinces of around 20 percent of the population, they account for less than 5 percent of overall violence in Iraq.
During our engagement in Iraq, we’ve always made clear that all our decisions must and will be based on the basis of assessments of our military commanders and actual conditions on the ground.
As a result of the progress made in southern Iraq, U.S., U.K., and Iraqi commanders judged over the last 15 months that three out of the four provinces in the U.K. area of control in southern Iraq were suitable for transition to the Iraqis. These are subsequently to be transferred to Iraqi control.
As part of the process of putting the Iraqi forces in the lead now in Basra, we have just gone through a demanding operation which involved consolidating our forces at Basra airport. This was successfully completed as planned last month.
The next important stage in delivering our strategy is to hand over security to the Iraqis, and it is to move from a combat role to the rest — in the rest of Basra province to overwatch, which will itself have two distinct stages.
In the first, the British forces that remain in Iraq will have the following tasks: training and mentoring the Iraqi army and police force, securing supply routes and policing the Iran-Iraq border, and the ability to come to the assistance of the Iraqi security forces when called upon.
Then in the spring of next year, and guided as always by the advice of military commanders, we plan to move to a second stage of overwatch where the coalition would maintain a more limited re- intervention capacity and where the main focus will be on training and mentoring.
And I want now to explain how after detailed discussions with our military commanders, a meeting of the Nation Security Committee, discussions with the Iraqi government and our allies. And, subject of course to conditions on the ground, we plan from next spring to reduce force numbers in southern Iraq to a figure of 2,500.
The first stage begins now with the Iraqis already assuming security responsibility. We expect to establish provincial Iraqi corps in Basra province in the next two months, as already announced by the prime minister of Iraq, move to the first stage of overwatch, reduce numbers in southern Iraq from at the start of September 5,500 to 4,500 immediately after provincial Iraqi control, and then to 4,000.
And then in the second stage of overwatch in the spring, and guided as always by advice of military commanders, reduce to around 2,500 troops, with a further decision about the next phase made then. And in both stages of overwatch, around 500 logistics and support personnel will be based outside Iraq but elsewhere in the region.
At all times, therefore, achieving our long-term aim of handing over security to the Iraqi armed forces and police, honoring our obligations to the Iraqi people and their security, ensuring the safety of our forces.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
36 Responses to “Brown Announces Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, Says Troop Reductions Have Made Basra ‘Calmer’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boy, I sure miss my poodle.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am-GWB
Se what a change in leadership can do? Now, I’m just dreaming.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amIt would be even more laudatory if Brown were to immediately withdraw Britain’s armed forces from Iraq. The Iraqis are not going to look too kindly upon any country keeping armed soldiers on their soil, no matter which country it is is that belongs to the coalition forces that are occupying Iraq.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am“Your guys sucked anyway. Who cares.” - GWB
October 8th, 2007 at 11:46 amHmmmm,
When does GWB get a letter from the Iraqi government, telling him his
whole plan sucked the big one? Would he care? Would he even tell the
American people? I’d like to see Iraqis begin telling the Bush Crime
Machine that the British plan is the only one working.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by Zimzone — October 8, 2007 @ 11:50 am
If they did, Darth would just have his SS Korps, err, Blackwater, “fix” that little Iraqi government problem ……. and with extreme prejudice, I am sure.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amSo is Bush going to muck up our relationship with Britain too now?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pmOMG! that means the insurgents will know that if they just wait, they will WIN!
It’s treason!
Finally, someone with a level head is in charge of something over there.
I vote we give command of our troops to someone other than an American Politician. Preferably someone who doesn’t own stock in a war profiteering company. There a thought, huh?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI guess that is what will happen when things calm down.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm“During our engagement in Iraq, we’ve always made clear that all our decisions must and will be based on the basis of assessments of our military commanders and actual conditions on the ground.”
Sounds like a good idea.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pmWell duh! If the Iraqis are incharge of themselves and they don’t have Amercian or British troops to take popshots at, then I guess they will have to get along with each others.
Let the civil war happen, it will be short or it will not happen at all, once we are out of there.
But Oil owns the politicians, so we are gonna be there a very, very, very, long time no matter if all (hehe) the other countries pull out.
Glad to see Brown is not gonna be Bush’s poodle.
Buck Fush
October 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm“Securing Iraq” is bushspeak for propping up an illegitimate puppet regime in Iraq that will allow U. S. corporations to steal the vast oil resources of that sad country.
For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire occupied what is now known as the Republic of Iraq. When the Turkish Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of World War I, the British colonialists quickly moved in to take control of the newly discovered oil fields. The British had to even use WMDs (the first use of poison gas dropped from airplanes) to try to suppress the Iraqis and the Kurds. Then they appointed their own Iraqi King…
It has been a long bumpy ride since then… It seems that U. S. and British imperialists can’t seem to keep their bloody hands off of Iraq.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pmNaa…let’s do Cheeeeeney’s plan and nuke Iran..That way we get all the oil AND we get to kill more folks. JUST what he wants!!!
October 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pmif you want to end the war enact the national initiative so we can have a vote as a majority of Americans. Then we can show the world that America when it works together is a compassionate nation.
http://www.ni4d.us
Its not an oppinion poll, its not a survey. It’s a real vote. go do it right now and get your friends and family to do the same.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:47 pmBrown: “Since we handed over our base in Basra City in early September, the present security situation has been calmer.”
This would be Bush’s worst nightmare. Imagine what it would be like if we actually withdrew troops only to have violence reduce in the areas of withdrawal. The Iraqis would love it, the United States would love it (most of us, anyway), and Bush would still have to ramp up the fear machine somehow.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pmComment by Vendetta — October 8, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
From your article:
That’s a pretty big if, Vendetta. Again, from your article (emphasis mine):
Sounds rather as if Britain is cautioning the U.S. to have something more substantial than lies and hysteria this time around.
One more time, from the article you cited:
When you blithely said “How about support a strike on Iran”, don’t you think you should have been a bit more specific? Or were you being intentionally misleading?
One final amusing point…all this is coming to us, courtesy of The Jerusalem Post, specifically, the “Iranian Threat” section.
Priceless.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Good catches, TMM. As usual, our trolls here like to cherry pcik not only the content, but the source as well. Must be a learned trait of all NeoCons, huh?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pmHow about support a strike on Iran.
Comment by Vendetta — October 8, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
While misleading, to say the least, it’s no less evident that our dear British friends are just as conservative as our leadership is. Britain should be an island off the coast of newfoundland, not Europe.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
While your journalism is most persuasive, you cannot deny that Britain would support an attack against Iran; be it publicly or not.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI think it used to be.
Comment by OMEGA_3 — October 8, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Haha, and now they are meddling in European politics. I guess in 1492 they just came home.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pmBritain would support a strike on Iran, but only if there was good evidence, that Iran was attacking either directly, or by proxy coalition forces.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmBush will now make the Brits our enemy. Since they were our strongest ally, this doesn’t bode well for this country at all.
At least they have the presence of mind and sanity to get out - something I can’t say about our country - sadly.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmPicklee sez:
Not denying it…merely pointing out that Britain’s definition of “strike”, as taken from the article is quite restricted…and also pointing out that Britain is placing sensible conditions on their involvement.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe Brits just realized that AIPAC is running this country?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm—-
ThinkProgress noted last week that the White House has been attacking the British for its withdrawal, claiming “British forces have performed poorly†in Iraq.
—-
That’s the thanks you get for helping the petulant boy George with the lives of your soldiers.
- Tom
October 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Agreed.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmSo is Bush going to muck up our relationship with Britain too now?
Comment by DigDug — October 8, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Fish and chips will hereafter be known as Freedom Fish.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmNot denying it…merely pointing out that Britain’s definition of “strikeâ€, as taken from the article is quite restricted…and also pointing out that Britain is placing sensible conditions on their involvement.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Oh right, when the Brits learned that the facts were being fixed around the agenda in Iraq they immediately informed the world and took a firm stand against any such invasion. So we surely can trust them to let us know if the facts the WH may present to make a case against Iran are substantiated or not. Call me crazy but I’m not reassured by their “sensible conditions”. Maybe I’m wrong.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pmAmazing. They didn’t even have to figure out how to fudge the numbers (bullet in the back of the head versus front of the head) to get those stats either. This “Browny” IS doing a heckuva job!
October 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pmOr were you being intentionally misleading?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 8, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
I’ve been reading TP headlines too long and its rubbing off.
If only the TP toadies were as critical of TP.
Comment by Vendetta — October 8, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Amazing how these Chimpy leg humping morons try to constantly denigrate others for their supposed lack of criticism against specific groups/publications/sites ; as if you 25%’ers have always been on such an “even keel” when it comes to the actions of the worst president and administration in US history in Chimpy and Co , and your comments about them ?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pmI’m registered Independent and I will not vote for any GOP. Anybody willing to associate with that corrupt failure of a party shows poor judgment.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pmUK to cut troops to 2500
October 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pmHave idiot cons yet called them “Fish and chip eating surrender monkeys” and renamed English Muffins: “Freedom Muffins”?
Damn conservatives are f’ing stupid!
October 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pmDidn’t Bush say, if you’re not with us, you’re against us. How many nukes does UK have?
October 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm>If the attacks where credible, why can’t they name the source.
Would you feel better about the source if it had a named called Curveball and was friends with a convicted embezzler named Chalabi?
Because thats the anonymous evidence you were willing to go to war over.
Anyone who thinks whistleblowers don’t have any reason to desire anonyminity should talk to Valerie Plame..
October 9th, 2007 at 3:43 amHere is Gordon Brown’s Press Conference from the other day:
http://beta.redlasso.com/ Community/ ClipPlayer.aspx?i=0de16a2a-58f7-464b-9377-a22c6158fcab
October 9th, 2007 at 10:30 am