[Previous entry: "Icelanders Take Anti Iraq War Campaign to U.S."] [Next entry: "Earthquake: Coincidence or a Corporate Oil Tragedy?"]

01/22/2005:

"US and UK look for early way out of Iraq"

Private memos are circulating in Washington, Baghdad and London setting out detailed scenarios for withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq as early as possible, a Foreign Office source said yesterday.

The policy papers have added urgency because a new Iraq government, to be elected next week if the election goes ahead on January 30 as planned, could set a target date for withdrawal.

John Negroponte, US ambassador to Baghdad, confirmed that a United Nations resolution declared that US and other forces would have to leave if requested by the Iraqi government. "If that's the wish of the government of Iraq, we will comply with those wishes. But no, we haven't been approached on this issue - although obviously we stand prepared to engage the future government on any issue concerning our presence here."

The Foreign Office source said: "Of course, we think about leaving Iraq. There is no point in staying there. There are continually plans in Whitehall, Washington and Baghdad to withdraw when we can.

"But there is no document saying we will leave in July 2005 or any other date. That would be a mug's game. There are documents all over the place with different scenarios." Until recently, the British government was working to a rough target date of June next year but that appears to have been abandoned as over-optimistic.

Senior British military figures want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq as quickly as possible. But they also recognise that substantial numbers are likely to be there well into next year, and probably longer.


A defence source said yes terday that British troops would pull out when the new Iraqi government wanted them to go. "We are not there yet by a long chalk," he said.

Even if a decision was taken today, he said, it would take until the end of the year to extract troops and their equipment. There are about 9,000 British troops in southern Iraq, a small fraction of the number of US troops in the country.

The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were dis mayed by the assessment of specialists sent out to review the progress of the Iraqi army. Only 5,000 of the 120,000-strong army was classified as being well enough trained to be dependable.

According to recent estimates, of some 135,000 recruited Iraqi police officers, only two-thirds report for duty. Lord Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff at the time of the invasion, said "only a small percentage is up to scratch". A member of the Commons defence committee said on return from a visit to southern Iraq - the quietest area - late last year: "It will take 10 to 15 years at least before troops can be withdrawn. The Iraqis just cannot cope with the security situation and won't be able to for years. It's another Cyprus."

The Foreign Office has welcomed public debate being conducted mainly in Washington over the last few weeks on the pros and cons of withdrawal.

A Guardian survey of foreign policy thinkers in the US, Britain, Iraq, France and Israel over the last 48 hours illustrated the divisions between those who favour early withdrawal, arguing that the US and British presence is counterproductive, and those who fear departure would lead to civil war and the break-up of Iraq.
guardian.co.uk