Well, perhaps
this explains why Bush used the dubious phrase ‘coalition forces’ in his speech
before the holiday weekend but Rumsfeld said “American troops” would be there a
long time…so far, this headline has not appeared in the MSM online press today.
Don’t know about broadcast.
Maybe this
will help with the passage of HR 1059, which would end discrimination in the military on
the basis of sexual orientation. Currently, it has 89 cosponsors, all but 3 of
them Democrats. The GOP party line appears to support gay bashing over military
readiness.
But it adds to
the renewed debate about a military draft here, and even though Bush doesn’t
face reelection, the Congress does. KwC
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:40
AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] All is not
well between Bush and Blair?
There are
some indications which strongly suggest that all is not well between Bush and
Blair right now.
(1) In a pre-G8 Conference interview with Channel 4 last night Bush rather too
brusquely said he would not agree with Blair's ideas for CO2 reduction as a
"quid pro quo" for his help in Iraq.
(2) This morning, a rather startling item in the Financial Times appeared (see below). In my opinion this
could only have been leaked by the UK Government.
(3) This evening on BBC 6 o'clock News (peak viewing time) there was an item
about the big medical centre in this country treating British soldiers
recruited in Iraq, dwelling significantly on the sad cases of amputees there
and a reminder that 87 British soldiers had died. Rather pointedly the BBC
journalist in interviewing one (double) amputee metnioned that he had been
wounded on that occasion when a battalion of British soldiers were
ostenatiously moved up into northern Iraq to a very dangerous area to cover for
American soliders. Nothing like this has ever appeared before on BBC TV during
two and a half years of the Iraq occupation and could only have appeared with
te express permission -- and probably prompting -- by the Government.
So, as they say in Yorkshire "Summat's up" I might mention also that
in the last couple of months, since he won a third term, Blair has become very
aggressive in all sorts of ways both on internal policy and abroad. He has
spoken out very forcefully against President Chirac and others in the EC. He
has been very forceful in matters such as Aid to Africa and global warming and
has tended to put Bush on the defensive on these matters.
Keith
<<<<
MoD PLANS IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL
Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of
British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to
Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.
In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed
forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations
is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at
least two southern provinces.
Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were
contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping
duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such
roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has
disappointed coalition officials.
But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command,
which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more
Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier
than those under US command.
Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being
developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end
of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over
from US troops in the south of Afghanistan.
In that role, the UK forces would help fight insurgents and provide support for
the war on narcotics in the region.
While the MoD insisted that no decision had been made on Afghan or Iraqi
deployments, John Reid, defence secretary, said yesterday that Iraqi forces
could begin to take charge of security in their country within a year.
In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Reid suggested that
plans were consistent with the recent prediction of Donald Rumsfeld, US defence
secretary, that it could take take up to 12 years to defeat the Iraqi
insurgency.
He told the BBC that while the insurgency in Iraq may go on for some
considerable time, there remained a second question.
Who will lead the security efforts against the insurgency? And I think in a
relatively short period of time we can start the process of that being led by
the Iraqi security forces themselves, he said.
Mr Reid went on: So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that
this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all
that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British
forces.
I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi
forces leading the effort themselves.
It is a view echoed by military commanders. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup,
the current Royal Air Force commander who will become chief of the general
staff next year, said more stable Iraqi provinces including those under
UK command were likely to be handed over to local security forces more
quickly than first thought.
By next April, a best case scenario would see current troops levels of 8,500
reduced to about 4,000-5,000, with a further cut in the period leading to the
first quarter of 2007, when the British military presence is expected to fall
to about 1,000 advisers and training personnel.
Additional reporting by Victoria Burnett in Kabul
Financial Times -- 5 July 2005
>>>>
