Beckett: Basra hand-over by spring (Great Britain's Foreign Secretary plans rapid exit strategy)

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | November 23, 2006 | Toby Helm

[Stoat]

Beckett: Basra hand-over by spring

By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
 

Last Updated: 1:56am GMT 23/11/2006

• British troops could be pulled back from front line duties in Iraq in less than six months under a new, rapid exit strategy being considered by Tony Blair.

  	Margaret Beckett: UK has a 'clear forward perspective' on Iraq

  The plan for a quicker than expected withdrawal was revealed today by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who said she had “confidence” the Iraqis could assume control of the southern Basra region “at some point next Spring.”. Most of Britain’s 7,200 troops in Iraq are stationed in and around Basra.

  Sources said the plan could involve the majority of British forces withdrawing to bases away from the city during a transitionary phase in which they would remain on hand in case the security situation deteriorated.

  In a Commons speech cleared by 10 Downing Street, Mrs Beckett said the process of transferring security to the Iraqis was “well under way” across the country, with US-administered Najaf regions expected to be handed over in December.

  She added: “In our own area of responsibility we expect Maysan to follow in January and the progresses of the current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we may be able to achieve transition in that province too at some point next Spring.”

  While Downing Street cautioned that a handover would be dependent on circumstances on the ground, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said British forces had been working alongside Iraqis forces to bolster security and speed reconstruction in Basra.

  “We believe the operation is going reasonably well, and dependent on the outcome of that will depend whether we can transfer Basra to the Iraqis,” the spokesman said.

  An MoD spokesman added: “We are saying we hope to be in a position in pring to be able to (go through with) transition. But it is too early to say whether it is going to happen or what the effect would be on troop numbers.”

  Last month Tony Blair suggested most British troops would remain in Iraq until early 2008. If they were not out by then he accepted they could become a “provocation”.

  Pressure for a rethink of the British/American strategy has been growing ahead of a report to the US Congress by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State. It is expected to recommend a phased withdrawal of US troops and may also suggest pulling back many forces into bases in friendly neighbouring states where they could be re-engaged if and when needed.

  Mrs Beckett insisted there was “no question of us cutting and running from Iraq - to do so would be an act of gross irresponsibility, abandoning the Iraqi people to bloodshed perhaps even worse than we see today.”

  Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, claimed the government remained unclear about its intentions. “Mrs Beckett’s comments are notable as much for what she doesn’t say as for what she does.

  “There is no indication that if control of Basra were to be handed over next spring, the deployment of British troops would be reduced.

  “The Government’s position remains having neither a strategy for staying or for going. We are still unduly subject to American influence.”

  William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, warned of a “cauldron of dangers” in the Middle East.

  He told MPs: “We believe the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was justified. We believe that mistakes have been made in the aftermath.

  “We agree the adoption of an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal would be unwise, given that this would obviously set a timetable for insurgent activity.”

  In the last ten days Mr Blair has admitted that the Iraq miss has been a “disaster” and has stressed that the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be balanced more with work on reconstruction of the two countries.

[Stoat]

See Also:

The Sun Online - News Basra pullout 'as Blair quits'

 
King of spin ... PM Tony Blair

Basra pullout 'as Blair quits'

 
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
November 23, 2006
 
 

 

BRITISH soldiers will be off the streets of Iraq and ready to come home in time for Tony Blair’s resignation, MPs were told yesterday.

 

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett confirmed Our Boys hope to hand over control of Basra to the Iraqis by the spring. The timing will chime perfectly with Mr Blair’s plan to resign in May and leave Downing Street by the end of July.

Mrs Beckett told MPs that after US-controlled Najaf is handed to Iraq next month, British-controlled Maysan could follow in January.

She added: “The progress of the current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we may be able to achieve transition in that province too at some point next spring.”

MoD chiefs hope to first hand control of the Basra streets to Iraqi police and army.

British forces will then be confined to their barracks for the following few months. They will be sent into action only if the city descends into chaos. The next step will be a phased pull-out from Iraq altogether.

But sources stressed that will take YEARS rather than months.

British forces handed over control of al-Muthanna province in July and Dhi Qar in September.

They have mounted Operation Sinbad in recent weeks to kill off a growing civil war in the south.

TWO more US soldiers have been killed tackling terrorists near Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit.

The deaths raised to 2,867 the number of US servicemen killed since the war began in March 2003.

A HELICOPTER carrying Foreign Office minister Kim Howells had to abandon a flight above Basra after an unknown problem caused it to lurch sharply on Sunday night.

 

• TONY BLAIR played cricket with schoolboys INSIDE No 10 yesterday – hours before England began their bid to keep the Ashes in Oz. The PM, hosting a sporting reception, said his batting was “shameful”. But he’s a master of spin.

[CBart95]

Sort of gives one the impression that the Brits are running things. Does'nt it?

They don't. We do.

Another reason to be grateful this Thanksgiving...

It goes well with our original one of getting rid of them in the first place.

[Stoat]

I found this article rather unsettling....I would have preferred a joint statement from the US Administration along with our British allies if there is in fact some consideration of such a radical and rapid change.
It caught me off-guard and causes me concern as to how much communication is occurring.

Also, by announcing this, the terrorists will merely wait until spring before launching any major offenses.

[CBart95]

Well said my friend.

But let's take it one logical step forward. Don't you see the "fine renaissance hand" of The Al Queda in all this?

This is vintage War Propaganda and the Brits are being led around by the nose in the role of gullible twits making disloyal and divisive press commentary for their "clients"...the Islamo-fascists.

Small wonder you are a little disconcerted by this utterly disloyal conduct.

You're not alone in this, dear one.

[Canard]

This has been in the planning for sometime. We already handed over a couple of provinces to the Iraqi forces, Maysan and Basra are next in line. And we are 'running things' in those areas.

[Canard]

"I would have preferred a joint statement from the US Administration along with our British allies if there is in fact some consideration of such a radical and rapid change."

Explain how is it radical and rapid? Perhaps you didn't read the article about how this has been planned, and how it fits in with the previous handovers by British to Iraqi security forces and similar operations in American controlled areas.

[BusterBear]

Well, the Muslim leaders in the UK told Blair, after the plot to blow up the airliners was discovered last summer, that Muslim dissatisfaction was due to the UK foreign policy in support of the US and Israel. And if Blair didn't change his foreign policy, he could have 2 million Muslim terrorists to contend with.

Also, the notion is being bruited about in liberal circles in the UK that if you support Israel or the US, you are betraying the UK by encouraging Muslim terrorism.

[Canard]

Blair's foreign policy has been entirely consistent throughout his Premiership. It's frequently misrepresented and misunderstood on this forum, but it's entirely consistent.

[Prodigal Son]

It caught me off-guard and causes me concern as to how much communication is occurring.

Well, you dropped the ball there. It caught no one off guard on this side of the Atlantic. It's only been building up in the news here for ages.

[CBart95]

Well said and noted.

The "story" is being "managed" by the press and "worked" as propaganda to the advantage of the enemy.

I trust you realize that "dis-information" is a prime weapon of these types of "warriors".

So, not to be too didactical, a simple old news item has been used like a flame thrower.

[Stoat]

It caught me off-guard and causes me concern as to how much communication is occurring.

Well, you dropped the ball there.

By my giving greater weight to an official statement by the Foreign Secretary at 10 Downing Street than by other, lower officials in times past that do not carry the weight of a State Policy?

It caught no one off guard on this side of the Atlantic. It's only been building up in the news here for ages.
 

Please don't be so terribly eager to paint others as being completely out of touch, when I am only drawing a distinction between previous 'chatter' and an official pronouncement of State Policy by the Foreign Secretary, which, by the way, is "quicker than expected", according to the article..

I continue to wish that this had been a joint announcement, considering the fact that it is being projected as a matter of State policy.

From the article:

"The plan for a quicker than expected withdrawal was revealed today by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary"

If the plan is 'quicker than expected', how can that have been "building up in the news here for ages."?

It caught me off-guard and causes me concern as to how much communication is occurring.

Well, you dropped the ball there.

By my giving greater weight to an official statement by the Foreign Secretary at 10 Downing Street than by other, lower officials in times past that do not carry the weight of a State Policy?

It caught no one off guard on this side of the Atlantic. It's only been building up in the news here for ages.
 

Please don't be so terribly eager to paint others as being completely out of touch, when I am only drawing a distinction between previous 'chatter' and an official pronouncement of State Policy by the Foreign Secretary, which, by the way, is "quicker than expected", according to the article..

I continue to wish that this had been a joint announcement, considering the fact that it is being projected as a matter of State policy.

From the article:

"The plan for a quicker than expected withdrawal was revealed today by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary"

If the plan is 'quicker than expected', how can that have been "building up in the news here for ages."?

[Prodigal Son]

Well, it didn't catch Canard off-guard either. Everybody knew this was coming. No need to be off guard.

[Stoat]

Well, it didn't catch Canard off-guard either. Everybody knew this was coming. No need to be off guard.

Everybody knew that a plan " for a quicker than expected withdrawal " was coming?

Why then, was this "quicker than expected?"

If "everybody knew it was coming" then it would have been just as all have expected then, wouldn't it?

And then it wouldn't be described as being "revealed today" would it, because it's "all old news" ?

If this "quicker than expected" plan is such old news for you, then I suppose you have a rare gift of insight that the author of this article doesn't have.

[Canard]

"then I suppose you have a rare gift of insight that the author of this article doesn't have."

Well that's quite possibly true.

Personally I think the author of the article has confused two issues of when day to day security control of certain areas will be handed over to the Iraqi's, as has always been planned, and when British troops will leave Iraq altogether.

For instance, at the start he says "The plan for a quicker than expected withdrawal was revealed today by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who said she had “confidence” the Iraqis could assume control of the southern Basra region “at some point next Spring.”."

And then later "Last month Tony Blair suggested most British troops would remain in Iraq until early 2008"

Those two are not in anyway mutually exclusive. And the article also states that "An MoD spokesman added: “We are saying we hope to be in a position in pring to be able to (go through with) transition. But it is too early to say whether it is going to happen or what the effect would be on troop numbers.”".

If British troops all left Iraq in the spring, that would indeed be 'quicker than expected'. But that is not what has been announced, nor is there any indication at this stage that it is envisanged. So the journalist is wrong in that statement.

The handover of areas to Iraqi control was always part of the plan, was always designed to be a step-by-step process and has been underway for quite some time. The handover of Maysan Province will actually be 'later than expected' as in the summer it was mooted for pre-Christmas.