Brit Iraq Withdrawal Not Really News

  • Bookmark and Share

As you'll see below, the alleged big news today of a Brit withdrawal from Iraq is not really news. It actually appears to be less than was planned months ago. And pardon me for yet once again pointing out what an idiot Glenn Greenwald, now at Salon, is while making the point.

You can click through to read Greenwald's latest on Blair's withdrawing of troops, or read the MSNBC version distortion here. But I'll post all you need to know.

Greeted with news that Blair is removing 1,500 troops in some number of weeks, Greenwald and the MSM are treating it like big news.

First Greenwald quotes Blair in the LA Times on Jan. 24:

Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected calls Wednesday to withdraw British forces from Iraq by October

Then he quotes Blair from today, suggesting it is a shocking reversal and a slap at Bush's surge - which it absolutely is not in both cases. "That rather striking reversal does not appear to reflect much confidence in the prospects of success for the President's Glorious AEI Surge"

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient

Now check out Blair via the Beeb on January 11, 2007:

Tony Blair has lost no time in signalling that President Bush's plans for a troop "surge" in Iraq will have no effect on British moves to gradually reduce force numbers in the country.

Indeed, all the talk in Westminster now is around speculation that the draw down of up to 3,000 UK troops may be under way by May - in the weeks leading up to the prime minister's expected retirement day.

The aim of these two developments is to seek to reassure voters that, whatever the US does, it will not lead to an increase in British involvement in the country or blow the government's plans off course.

Ministers are eager to point out, as Mr Blair reminded the Cabinet on Thursday morning, that conditions on the ground in the UK's zone of operation in Basra are entirely different from those in Baghdad, which is the focus of the US movement.

It's a non-story, just as Greenwald is a non-entity when it comes to his having an objective, or fully informed opinion.

—Dan Riehl is a blogger and journalist. Read more of his work at Riehl World View.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Was the surge planned knowi

Was the surge planned knowing the British troops were leaving soon? That would be a news story.

The surge was planned assum

The surge was planned assuming the British weren't wrong a century ago & that Iraq is (or even can-be) one country, instead of three. But obviously, the Brits were wrong way back then, and absent a strongman Tito-style brutal dictator it will become three countries again. The only question now is how much violence will happen before three separate countries (and at least 2 of them will probably hate the USA) emerge, IMO.
JMR

I haven't had a chance to rea

I haven't had a chance to read it yet in this morning's Sun Times, but there was a headline that read "British Retreating from Iraq."  So, in other words, taking your troop levels down from 7000 to 5000 is a retreat.  Useful Idiots, indeed.

Indeed, by their standards

Indeed, by their standards our 20,000 troop surge would be an entirely new war. As I'm not very informed on the subject, is it true that Basra is in a good enough situation for this "retreat?"

Wing, One sure sign that it i

Wing, One sure sign that it is - where have the Useful Idiots been with the reporting of carbombs etc on Basra?  I sure haven't heard much, if any.  I'm open to correction on this, but from what I have seen the reporting from Basra hasn't been very negative.

So what are they doing &quo

So what are they doing "right" and what are we doing "wrong"? Or does it have to do with the population of the areas in question?

WW...Basra and the southern p

WW...

Basra and the southern part of Iraq does not have the religious and ethnic mix that they have in the Baghdad area. This tends to keep things quieter.

Which, in mind, further makes

Which, in mind, further makes the point.  If the region is stable (be it success of the Brit forces or ethnic mix - the reason is immaterial), why is it a "retreat"?  The use of that term by the Useful Idiots is shameful.