by Ken Bell

In a breathless report yesterday London’s Mail On Sunday declared that “Britain and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq – despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region . . . . A secret paper written by Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.

“The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush’s pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq’s own forces are strong enough to take control of security.”

The Mail claims that “the document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced” and implies that this contradicts “the British Government’s public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was ‘vital’ the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.”

In particular, they report, the memo describes “a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces [two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq] in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006” and observes that “this in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel by mid 2006.” Moreover, the document claims that “there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions.

“Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in [Allied troops] from 176,000 down to 66,000. There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and the multinational force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious.”

But there are substantial reasons to doubt the Mail On Sunday’s Simon Walters’ interpretation of this leaked document.

First, as the story’s twelfth paragraph admits, “Mr Reid states that his proposal is not yet a ‘ministerially endorsed position’ – or Government policy – though he clearly believes it should be.” Not policy, advocacy.

Second, while “the Ministry of Defence last night confirmed the leaked document was genuine” nevertheless “Mr Reid said: ‘This is but one of a number of papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. We have made it plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decisions on the future of UK forces have been taken.

“‘But we have always said it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases. We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options. This is prudent planning.’” Contingency planning for possible, perhaps even probable scenarios, but not a decision.

Third, the author tips his hand decisively when he asserts that “the memo leaves little doubt that the British plan to take their lead from the White House, where an increasingly unpopular Mr Bush is under huge pressure from the US public to bring American troops home fast.” This is absurd. To characterize the prevailing opinion in the United States this way is either willful and blatant misrepresentation of recent opinion polls, or utter ignorance of the facts. There is no “huge pressure from the US public” for immediate withdrawal, and to describe the president as “increasingly unpopular” is a falsehood.

Consider in this context the Herald of Scotland’s more expansive and illuminating reporting:

“Mr Reid confirmed he had drawn up the leaked paper, but insisted it was merely one of many laying out a wide range of possible options facing America and Britain in Iraq.

He said: ‘We have made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases. We, therefore, continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies.’

“He added: ‘This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. This is prudent planning. I stress again that no decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken.’

“However, the leaking of the document comes just days after the secretary of state dropped a strong hint that at least some British troops might leave Iraq in the near future.

“While he quoted a point made by Donald Rumsfeld, his US counterpart, that it might be some considerable time before terrorism was defeated in Iraq, he told MPs last Monday: ‘It may be a much shorter timescale before the Iraqis themselves can take the lead in combating that terrorism. So the timescale he envisaged is not necessarily the timescale during which our troops would have to be there.’

“He added: ‘I look forward within the next year to the Iraqis beginning to take over, in some of the 18 divisions of Iraq, the lead role in counter-terrorism.’”

Rather than the precipitous and panicked retreat implied by the Mail, the reality would appear to be planning based upon a measured weighing of the evolving capabilities of Iraqi troops in training.

In this context, the Reuters “news” service concludes its dispatch (in Calcutta’s Telegraph) with the observation that “cutting back to 66,000 troops would leave manpower for just two full US divisions. Enough, probably, to prevent Iraqi militia from contemplating all-out sectarian war, but not enough to participate in day-to-day patrolling of most of the country.” But of course, precisely this objective has been an inherent facet of the ongoing training of Iraqi troops and police forces. Not only are they linguistically and culturally more attuned to the demands of patrolling the country than our forces could ever hope to be, but also once they have met qualifications in equipment and training they will certainly produce superior results and engender less resentment.

As the BBC’s Paul Reynolds phrases it in “Hopes and Problems of Iraq Drawdown”, “the politics require that Iraq be controlled by Iraqis as soon as possible. This has always been the intention if not the current reality. A reduction would also help both Mr Bush and Mr Blair domestically. But full withdrawal, as carried out by Spain and hoped for by Italy, is not on the horizon.” In other words, “the memo does not indicate that basic policy has changed or will change. This is that the troops will be there ‘as long as is needed.’

“But the plan is that not so many will be needed.”

Moreover, he observes, “a reduced Iraq commitment would help the UK to find 3,000 more troops for Afghanistan next year. They are needed both to man the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps HQ, which is to be deployed there under British leadership, and to add troops to the fight against the Taleban and the heroin trade.”

What are we to conclude? This is not, as the Calcutta Telegraph described it a “Timeline for Iraq Withdrawal”, but a planned response, in accord with declared policy, to transfer responsibility to the sovereign nation of Iraq’s own forces as they grow increasingly capable of independent but supported action. Not retreat, progress. If not accomplished, anticipated.

(For more see Tom Regan’s commentary on the Christian Science Monitor’s site. He includes the comments of leftist Juan Cole, whose nearly invariant record of misinformation, distortion and error is almost legendary.)