The Charlatan is effectively down to a coalition of one in Iraq because Tony called and told him he was beginning withdrawal with 1600 soldiers going home this summer. UK (7100) is the only partner besides South Korea (2300) with more than a 1000 men committed to the fight. South Korea will halve its troop level by April and is being pressured by its parliament to be out by the end of the year. Denmark (450) is leaving in August. Poland (900) will leave by the end of the year. What remains of the "coalition of the willing" is Australia (550), Georgia (800) and Romania (600). Seems there is a 'surge' in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, the bellicose and increasingly irrelevant Darth Cheney is proclaiming death before dishonor en route to Australia. It will cost the Aussies an estimated $3 to $6 million to protect him from the public. It should be the other way around. Thank you, Pat Oliphant for the sick 'toon.
Weekend Update: Could this be evidence of a quid pro quo between the influential Royals and Tony Blair's government? The day after he announced the beginning of British forces withdrawing from Iraq, the MOD announced that Prince Harry will serve in southern Iraq as an armored troop commander with his regiment, The Blues and Royals. The answer is: No. The withdrawal represents the recognition of two realities in the UK. The Labour Party is behind in the polls in front of an election primarily because of Blair's unpopular war policy. The much smaller British Army is straining to the point of dysfunction under the burden of fighting on two fronts, southern Iraq and Afghanistan. Basra, while calmer than Baghdad, is still the scene of daily fighting. Southern Iraq is listed by the Pentagon as one of two regions not ready to be turned over to Iraqi security forces. According to one Washington think tank, "the deep south is unstable, factionalized, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and subject to militia primacy." An American policy expert on Iraq characterized British trained Iraqi security forces as little more than extensions of Shia Islamist control of the region. Thus, the British withdrawal plan must be considered an adverse development in the American effort to pacify the country enough to allow it's exit.
Weekend Update: Could this be evidence of a quid pro quo between the influential Royals and Tony Blair's government? The day after he announced the beginning of British forces withdrawing from Iraq, the MOD announced that Prince Harry will serve in southern Iraq as an armored troop commander with his regiment, The Blues and Royals. The answer is: No. The withdrawal represents the recognition of two realities in the UK. The Labour Party is behind in the polls in front of an election primarily because of Blair's unpopular war policy. The much smaller British Army is straining to the point of dysfunction under the burden of fighting on two fronts, southern Iraq and Afghanistan. Basra, while calmer than Baghdad, is still the scene of daily fighting. Southern Iraq is listed by the Pentagon as one of two regions not ready to be turned over to Iraqi security forces. According to one Washington think tank, "the deep south is unstable, factionalized, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and subject to militia primacy." An American policy expert on Iraq characterized British trained Iraqi security forces as little more than extensions of Shia Islamist control of the region. Thus, the British withdrawal plan must be considered an adverse development in the American effort to pacify the country enough to allow it's exit.