Tony Blair's unpopularity in Britain seem to be helping to persuade the Brits to withdraw. Iraq's govt is giving the Brits a helping hand, providing them with an excuse to leave. But how long with the U.S. troops remain? Remember that it was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi that (apparently) antagonized Bin Ladin enough to attack us in the first place. The longer the U.S. troops stay, the more antagonism will breed, probably. But we're in a paradoxical situation, because the lack of attacks on the U.S. during the Iraq war sort of provides Rumsfeld with some credibility--either they will fight us here or they will fight us abroad. At least, that is the Repug's counter-argument. It's sort of a Catch-22, because pulling out may very well be followed by unprovoked vengeance attacks. But that doesn't mean we should stay.
Report: U.K. Troops May Leave Iraq by 2006
LONDON (AP) - British troops could leave Iraq by the end of 2006, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in a television interview to be broadcast on Sunday. Britain's top soldier said this timetable was well within the realm of possibility.
Talabani said Iraqi troops should be ready to take over from British forces in the southern provinces around Basra by the end of next year, adding no Iraqis wanted foreign troops to remain indefinitely in their country.
But he warned that an immediate withdrawal of U.S.-led forces would be a catastrophe for Iraq and would lead to civil war, with harmful consequences for the entire Middle East.
``We don't want British forces forever in Iraq. Within one year - I think at the end of 2006 - Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British forces in the south,'' Talabani said in the interview with Jonathan Dimbleby for Independent Television. The station released details from the interview before it aired.
