- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us)
- Posts
- 5,439
Preferably one in Baghdad.Originally Posted by The Pervert
Oh, I hadn't thought of that detail. It was all I could hope for that he'd fall asleep in his tub at home.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"
Re: Last Two Posts of Pink Splice.
Pink, I hate to tell you this, but Afghanistan and Pakistan are not in Iraq.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Correct. Please try to tell me that we're not fighting both wars with the same Army. Incidentally:Pink, I hate to tell you this, but Afghanistan and Pakistan are not in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ids/index.html
perhaps a Middle East CF thread would suffice?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...ent/index.html
U.S.-Iraq deal would whittle troops' immunity
* Story Highlights
* NEW: U.S.-Iraq draft: Troops committing murder in Iraq could face Iraqi prosecution
* Iraq's ruling United Iraqi Alliance found several "points" needing more discussion
* Ruling bloc did not make clear what issues they had regarding troop agreement
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops or contractors who commit "major and premeditated murders" in Iraq while off-duty and outside U.S. facilities would fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, according to a copy of a draft U.S.-Iraq agreement obtained by CNN.
Shiite demonstrators protest a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security pact Saturday in Baghdad.
Shiite demonstrators protest a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security pact Saturday in Baghdad.
All other crimes -- including murders committed inside U.S. facilities or by on-duty forces -- would fall under American jurisdiction, according to the draft, which would govern U.S. troops' presence in Iraq.
The issue of whether U.S. troops would remain immune from Iraqi prosecution has been a sticky one for negotiators crafting the Status of Forces Agreement draft, which Iraqi lawmakers are reviewing. The United States had preferred its troops and contractors retain immunity.
The draft also calls for U.S. troops to be out of Iraqi cities by July 30, 2009, and out of the country entirely by December 31, 2011. The agreement allows for an earlier withdrawal or an extension of the U.S. forces' stay in Iraq, by agreement of both parties.
It also allows the Iraqi government to "request from the United States government to leave certain forces for training and for support purposes for the Iraqi forces."
The governments have been trying to get a deal before December 31, when a U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq expires.
Iraq's ruling Shiite parliamentary bloc said Sunday it needs more time before it can approve the draft.
The United Iraqi Alliance bloc found several "points" in the draft that "need more time for discussion, dialogue and amendments [to] some of its articles," according to the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, the most powerful party in the bloc.
It was unclear what specific "points" the parliamentary bloc was questioning.
Thousands of people marched in central Baghdad on Saturday to protest the draft U.S.-Iraqi security agreement. The political party of Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the rally.
Baghdad had sought the power to arrest and try Americans accused of crimes that are not related to official military operations, plus jurisdiction over troops and contractors who commit grave mistakes in the course of their duties.
The United Iraqi Alliance on Sunday night discussed the draft, which was presented by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose Dawa Party is also a member of the ruling bloc.
Iraq's Political Council for National Security needs to approve the draft before al-Maliki sends it to his cabinet. The council includes the leaders of various political blocs -- including the United Iraqi Alliance -- as well as Iraq's president, prime minister, vice presidents, and speaker of parliament.
If the cabinet passes the draft by a two-thirds majority, al-Maliki will submit it to the Iraqi parliament for approval.
A senior Bush administration official said last week that the U.S. is examining "contingencies" in case the Iraqi government is unable to sell the status-of-forces deal to the country's various factions.
If Iraq does not approve the deal, fallback options include "a new U.N. Security Council resolution legally authorizing the extension of the U.S. footprint" or an "informal agreement between the United States and the Iraqis," the official told CNN last week.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.
Other points covered in the draft agreement include Iraqi ownership of "all the buildings, facilities and structures that cannot be transported and are connected to the ground" and used by American forces. Such facilities will be returned to Iraq when the agreement expires, it says.
Further, the agreement requires the United States to immediately return to Iraq any "historic or cultural site" it discovers at facilities it is using.
The agreement allows the United States to use whatever defensive systems it deems necessary in areas under its control. Yet it bars "systems of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, nuclear, radiological, biological weapons and waste related to these weapons)."
The United States is to transfer control of Iraqi airspace to Iraq when the agreement goes into effect, although Iraq can ask for assistance for airspace control and surveillance.
advertisement
The agreement also covers environmental issues; the comings and goings of troops in and out of Iraq; movement of vehicles, planes and ships; and the movement of equipment in and out of Iraq.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is lobbying Iraqi leaders to pass the draft text of the agreement by the end of the year, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said last week.
It Might Not Get Done
To celebrate a wedding, shots are fired into the air. An air strike get called in in response. To protect diplomats or contractors, private security hirelings will stop traffic to prevent any potential car bombs from getting into suicide range. Any car that doesn't stop quickly enough to satisfy the guns for hire gets blown away. Foreign troops crash in the front door of a building. Any who flee out the back door are presumed guilty, to be shot down without warning. Thousands of Americans have died. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. The foreigners, however, remain above the law, often protected by cover ups. The locals do not feel the foreign commanders are doing enough to keep the foreign troops well under control. There is a real open question at this point on whether the foreigners are more of a problem than a solution.
I am not at all sure this deal is going to get done. After the way things have been going for years, local justice is not going to be kind to the foreigners. It may be that US policy and doctrine are not compatible with rule of law.
It may be that we're outta there.
http://www.slate.com/id/2202771/
Bush's Final IllusionThe president's agreement with Iraq bypasses Congress. Again.
By Bruce Ackerman and Oona A. HathawayPosted Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have reached an agreement governing American military forces in Iraq. But under the Iraqi Constitution, parliament has to approve the deal, and major political parties are already demanding changes. With the threat of an Iraqi parliamentary veto monopolizing the headlines, it is easy to forget that Bush is proposing to shut Congress entirely out of the process. He is claiming the unilateral right to commit the country to his agreement.
This claim has no constitutional merit, as we've explained previously. It is particularly problematic when Americans will soon be choosing between two presidential candidates who have taken positions that are at odds with the Bush agreement. In claiming unilateral authority, a discredited administration is trying to secure its legacy by striking at the very heart of the democratic process—and, ironically, making the Iraqi government look more democratic than our own.
President Bush defends his action by pointing to "status of forces" agreements that a long line of American presidents have unilaterally negotiated with close to 100 countries around the world. These involve a host of day-to-day matters like delivery of supplies to the troops, which are well within the president's exclusive power as commander in chief. But the present initiative goes far beyond anything in these previous agreements.
For starters, the Bush proposal undermines the constitutional powers of the next president as commander in chief. It subjects American military operations to "the approval of the Iraqi government," giving operational control to "joint mobile operations command centers" supervised by a joint American-Iraqi committee. American commanders in the field will retain their power to act without advance Iraqi approval only in cases of self-defense. While American troops have been placed under foreign control in peacekeeping operations, this has occurred only under treaties approved by the Senate. No American president has ever before claimed the unilateral power to bargain away the military power of his successors.
The proposed agreement also submits thousands of private military contractors to Iraqi courts in the event that they are charged with a crime. This provision points to a serious problem. Many of these contractors are now beyond the jurisdiction of both American and Iraqi courts. Operating within a no-law zone, they can victimize Iraqi civilians with impunity. We should definitely bring this abuse to an end, but Congress should be involved in devising an appropriate solution. These contractors have no direct relationship to the military. They are working for the State Department and other federal agencies. It is up to Congress, not the president, to decide whether the embryonic Iraqi court system is up to the task of holding the contractors to account or whether American laws should instead be given extraterritorial force.
If allowed to stand, these remarkable actions will serve as precedents for more presidential abuses in the decades ahead. But over the short term, the agreement's three-year schedule for the withdrawal of American combat troops will be more important. Barack Obama has insisted on a 16-month timetable, and John McCain has rejected all such limitations. Ignoring both of these positions, the Bush agreement charts its own course. It commits the United States to a timetable for withdrawing troops from cities, towns, and villages in Iraq by June 30, 2009, with final withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011. The agreement also requires a full year's notice before either party may withdraw, another purported effort to control the next president's conduct of foreign policy.
Worse yet, the text governing early withdrawal of troops is a muddle. Since the Bush administration hasn't made its agreement generally available to the public, we are relying on an English translation from Arabic kindly provided to us by Raed Jarrar, a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. It provides that "U.S. forces may withdraw by dates that are before the dates in the agreed timetable if either of the two sides should so request." But this creates a tension with another provision that makes any change in the June 2009 deadline "subject to both sides' approval." Confusion is compounded by a third clause stipulating that both sides must approve of any extension of the final December 2011 deadline. Putting all these provisos together, it appears that the Americans can "request" a change in the timetables, but that both sides must agree to it.
Only one thing is clear. The agreement is intended to make it harder for a potential Obama administration to carry through on its pledge to end combat operations within 16 months, not three years. This is hardly a move the Democratic majority in Congress would approve, precisely why the administration is refusing to recognize lawmakers' constitutional prerogatives.
Congress is presently out of session, with senators and representatives back in their districts for the election. It is especially anti-democratic for President Bush to announce a unilateral deal at a moment when Congress isn't in a position to protest immediately the usurpation of its authority.
When Congress returns, it should demand that the president submit the agreement to it for formal approval. This won't delay the final deal. Given the broad resistance to the agreement in Iraq, its parliament won't be in a position to ratify the agreement until next year anyway. Both Bush and Maliki recognize this. That's why their deal lays the groundwork for a temporary extension of the U.N. mandate that currently authorizes the American military occupation of Iraq.
This mandate, however, is presently scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Bush and Maliki should request six additional months from the Security Council. And then the president should follow up by submitting the proposed bilateral agreement with Iraq to Congress. But before this can happen, the Bush administration must give up on its dream of making a last-minute deal with Iraq which will magically secure its legacy—at the expense of the next president.
Democracy Is Messy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...ontracts_N.htm
Canceled Iraq contracts cost U.S. $600 million
Posted 4h 4m ago
By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon spent about $600 million on more than 1,200 Iraq reconstruction contracts that were eventually canceled, nearly half of them for mismanagement or shoddy construction, government investigators say.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) found that 42% of canceled contracts were terminated because the contractor either failed to deliver or performed poorly.
MORE: Banned firms got new U.S. contracts in Iraq
The rest were canceled for the "convenience of the government," usually for security problems, lack of funding or changing requirements, an inspector general report says.
The report, which analyzed contracts since 2003, detailed seven projects in which the U.S. paid total of $172.2 million for work that was substandard, unfinished or never built.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States | Iraq | Baghdad | Pentagon | Air Force | Army Corps of Engineers | Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction | Headquarters | Erin Kuhlman
Many of the factors causing contracts to be canceled are beyond the control of the companies or the United States, said DeDe Cordell, a spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers in Baghdad. "The very small number of issues found by the SIGIR in this report is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the people managing these complicated contracts," Cordell said in an e-mail.
The report, released Oct. 27, recommends better screening of contractors.
The $50.8 billion U.S. reconstruction program in Iraq is winding down, with about 70% of the money already spent on about 50,000 projects. Still, federal investigators continue to find examples of waste, fraud and mismanagement.
The canceled projects include:
• Headquarters for two Iraqi military units. The Air Force paid Ellis Environmental Group of Florida $101.2 million, although one project was never started and another was 85% complete. A $31.9 million contract was canceled because of land disputes and the other for $69.3 million after the government determined "the contractor … was performing well below standards," the report says. George Cox, president of Ellis' parent company, called the allegations "a load of horse puckey."
• Two prisons in Iraq. The Pentagon paid Parsons Global Services of California $62 million before canceling the contracts with less than half of the work completed because of delays and rising costs. Parsons is challenging the cancellations before a Pentagon appeals board, company spokeswoman Erin Kuhlman said in an e-mail. She said sectarian violence caused the delays and cost increases.
• Headquarters for an Iraqi military battalion in northwestern Iraq. The report says the U.S. canceled a contract with Colorado-based CH2M Hill because of cost overruns and paid $4.1 million although nothing was built. CH2M Hill spokeswoman Tessa Anderson said costs increased because the military changed the requirements from rehabilitating existing buildings to building a new facility. In an e-mail, she said the company hired workers and subcontractors, brought them to the site and did earth-moving work.
The Surge Is Working!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html
updated 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
Commentary: The woes of a peaceful and persecuted people
* Story Highlights
* Nadia Keilani: My family left Iraq in the early 1980s
* They are Mandaeans, members of a pacifist religion that was concentrated in Iraq
* She says Mandaeans were persecuted in the civil unrest after U.S. invasion
* Keilani: Mandaean religion may vanish now that followers are scattered worldwide
By Nadia Keilani
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Nadia Keilani is an attorney in San Diego and a member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and of the Arab-American Advisory Committee to the City of San Diego Chief of Police. She is an anti-Iraq war activist who frequently speaks at peace demonstrations.
Nadia Keilani says the Mandaean religion is in danger of disappearing.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- I left Iraq in 1981, at the age of 9. I remember that day as if it were yesterday. My mother, sister and I left together, while my father stayed behind for a few weeks to finish dismantling a lifetime in a country he loved.
At the time of our departure, Iraq was waking up to the suffocating power of Saddam Hussein. For those intuitive enough, it was the ideal time to leave. To my great sorrow, I have never been back. To my even greater sorrow, my children will never experience the Iraq that I loved. That Iraq is now only a memory, replaced by a dark and hopeless country that I no longer recognize.
Whenever someone discovers that I'm from Iraq, it inevitably leads to being asked about my religious affiliation.
I belong to a religious minority called Mandaean, also known as Sabeans or Sabean-Mandaean. We are a Gnostic sect that claims Adam as the first in a line of "teachers" and John the Baptist as the last. Even today, our baptisms are conducted in the same manner that John the Baptist baptized Jesus and others of his time.
Mandaeanism is a pacifist religion that forbids violence even in defense of life. In the anarchy that is today's Iraq, this has proved fatal to the existence of this small but important part of human religious history. Photo Click here to see some of Keilani's photos »
Outside Iraq, few have heard of us. For centuries, Mandaeans lived almost exclusively in Iraq, with a fraction in Iran. In Iraq, we are a sect known to have our own customs, holidays and ancient traditions. Despite our small number -- at our height, only 70,000 of more than 20 million Iraqis -- you would be hard pressed to find an Iraqi who did not know of Mandaeanism.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lawlessness took hold of the country in large part because of the decision by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer to dismantle the Iraqi government, including the army and police. For those of us who witnessed the L.A. riots and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the consequences of such a decision and resultant lawlessness were painfully obvious.
As Iraq descended into anarchy and chaos, people relied more and more on religious and tribal affiliations for protection. Lost in the chaos were the Mandaeans. Jewelers and silversmiths by trade, the Mandaeans were considered wealthier than average Iraqis. They also were known not to carry weapons, as explicitly forbidden by the religion. This made them prime targets for kidnappings, murders, rapes and expulsion from their homes.
To be a Mandaean, you must be born to two Mandaean parents. To survive, Mandaean communities must exist in large enough numbers for young people to meet, marry and have children. Since 2003, the number of Mandaeans inside Iraq has dwindled to fewer than 5,000. Tens of thousands are scattered throughout Europe, Australia and the United States. The results of this diaspora are clear: Our religion probably will cease to exist in my children's lifetime.
In 2006, at the age of 34, on a whim, I joined my parents and sisters at the 10th annual World Mandaean Conference, in Canada, along with my husband, daughter and son.
It was an emotional three days, meeting cousins for the first time, seeing an aunt I had not seen in 30 years and -- most importantly -- watching my children's faces as they witnessed a baptism. I am not a religious person, but something moved me as I watched the 60 or so Mandaeans being baptized in our intricate and ancient method.
Maybe it was the unbreakable link with our past or the realization that this precious ritual will soon die out. Either way, I felt more connected to and protective of this ancient way of life than at any other time.
From Canada, I flew alone to Syria. I now had more family living as refugees in Syria than remaining in Iraq. Ironically, 25 years to the day after I left Iraq, I walked into a crowded cafe in Damascus to see two of my aunts and an uncle for the first time since 1981. I also got to meet six of my cousins for the first time.
Through tear-filled hugs, I began to get to know this part of my family. The next 10 days were spent mostly with my cousins, six wonderful young people, all in their 20s, still living in Iraq and eager to live life after years of a horribly suffocating occupation.
I cried as they told terrifying tales of life in Baghdad: how they no longer left the house unless it was absolutely necessary; how they missed their university classes on most days because the roads were too dangerous to travel. Saddest of all, a female cousin spoke of how her only interaction with the outside world came through the peephole in the front door of her house.
This was a stark contrast to the life my siblings and I led in the Iraq of the 1970s and early '80s. That Iraq was filled with bustling streets and total personal safety. There was no crime to speak of, and persecution of minority groups was rare.
Our last night together was bittersweet. I was returning to the safety and comfort of the United States while some of them would return to terror and uncertainty in Baghdad. One cousin in particular, a 25-year-old man with a "macho" demeanor, broke down and cried at the thought of going back to Baghdad. He kept repeating "I'm afraid, I'm afraid." We hugged him as the tears streamed down our faces.
That trip changed my life. I felt I had to save these precious young lives.
Upon my return to the U.S., I contacted members of Congress and asked for assistance both in publicizing the plight of the Iraqi Mandaeans and in helping my family members find refuge in the United States. The process was slow and painful. These meetings took place as the debate over illegal immigration raged, and some congressional staffers could not bring themselves to differentiate between the humanitarian and legal entry I was requesting for my relatives and the illegal immigration they fiercely opposed.
In March 2007, I learned of a "sponsorship" process that had been newly expanded to permit resettlement in the U.S. for a greater number of Iraqi refugees with family already here. I immediately completed the necessary forms and waited while those of my relatives fortunate enough to have been granted refugee status in Syria went through the lengthy process that would eventually bring some of them to the U.S.
Finally, in early 2008, more than a year and a half after our tear-filled farewell, I received an e-mail from one of my cousins, titled "happy news." They had been accepted for resettlement in the U.S.
My uncle, his wife and their four children arrived in the United States in late June 2008. They amaze me with their optimistic view of life, their unlimited drive and their unbreakable spirit. After five months, my young cousins are working, going to school and speaking better English every day.
Many of my relatives, including an 80-year-old aunt, remain in Syria. Others risked their lives to make it to Western European countries only to find themselves filled with loneliness, away from the rest of their family, much less the Mandaean community.
advertisement
A handful remain in Iraq, living under terrifying conditions. It is of them that I think every time I hear hollow declarations of optimism about the state of affairs in Iraq.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nadia Keilani.
Karzai: Fixed end date needed for Afghan war
President says world leaders must set a time limit for Taliban's defeat
This is Afghanistan, not Iraq, but it seems like Karzai too is being pressured by a populace that doesn't like foreigners running around fighting wars. It is being reported as, 'If you can't beat the Taliban, go home.'
See why I created the Middle East CF thread?
Dad was right: Stay at least 2500 klicks from Mesopotamia.
Fourth Generation Warriors Haven't Learned...
Bush 43 started out his presidency with Rumsfeld pushing high tech military that could achieve great things against conventional opponents with small numbers with few casualties. About the time of the Surge, Bush 43 figured out he was fighting the wrong war, that to fight insurgents he needed boots on the ground more than he needed stealth destroyers.
Thus, Rumsfeld out, Gates in. We might find out how many hand launched reconnaissance drones can be bought for the price of a hyper-cruise stealth fighter. It seems Gates wants to fight the wars we're in, not a major conflict against another superpower.
Here we have a complaint by one of Rumsfeld's fourth generation warriors, still looking to fight the wrong war.
Di Rita is a moron, with sour grapes.
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
A Washington Post article by an interrogator just back from Iraq, from a team that played a role in capturing Zarqawi. The basic theme is that torturing people ticks them off, and makes a war for hearts and minds very very difficult.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/05/...ent/index.html
updated 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
Sources: 5 Blackwater guards charged in Iraq deaths
* Story Highlights
* Sources: Five Blackwater guards charged in 2007 shooting that killed 17 Iraqis
* Sixth guard in plea negotiations, sources say
* Charges are not publicly known because indictment is under seal
* Charges could be made public as early as Monday
By Kevin Bohn and Terry Frieden
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Five security guards from Blackwater Worldwide have been indicted on charges related to a 2007 shooting in which 17 Iraqis were killed in a Baghdad square, two sources said Friday.
An Iraqi woman looks at a blood-stained car of two women killed in the 2007 Nusoor Square shooting.
An Iraqi woman looks at a blood-stained car of two women killed in the 2007 Nusoor Square shooting.
A sixth security guard is in plea negotiations, the sources told CNN. The exact charges handed up by a federal grand jury were not revealed.
The sources requested anonymity because the indictment remains under court seal. It is expected to be made public by Justice Department officials as early as Monday.
The Justice Department had no comment on the development, and defense attorneys for the men could not be reached for reaction.
The State Department, which employed Blackwater to protect U.S. diplomats and other employees, also had no comment.
Blackwater said it wouldn't comment until there's an official announcement.
Iraqi authorities accused Blackwater guards of killing 17 civilians and wounding nearly 30 in the September 2007 shootings in Nusoor Square in western Baghdad.
Blackwater said its guards were protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy when they came under attack from armed insurgents. The guards returned fire, Blackwater said.
Don't Miss
* Iraq gives final OK to U.S. pullout
* Feds near decision on indictments in Blackwater case
* Blackwater defends team in Baghdad shootings
But an Iraqi investigation called the killings "premeditated murder" and accused the guards of firing on civilians indiscriminately. The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene also told investigators they found no evidence the guards were fired upon, sources told CNN.
The complex legal case has been dogged by difficulties and may present a major challenge to federal prosecutors.
Among the potential problems is the uncertain limit of a law passed by Congress that prevents prosecution of military personnel or others working for the military and leaves open the question of those working for other U.S. government departments and agencies abroad.
The incident heightened tensions between U.S. and Iraqi government officials and contributed to a protracted debate over the extent of immunity that U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors have from Iraqi laws.
Security contractors have had immunity from Iraqi law under a provision put into place in the early days of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. But starting next year, under a U.S.-Iraq security agreement that Iraq approved Thursday, Iraq will have the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. contractors and their employees.
The State Department renewed Blackwater's contract this year over strong objections from the Iraqi government.
Coalition Of The Leaving
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ops-iraq_N.htm
Britain to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in March
Updated 3h 29m ago
By Jeffrey Stinson, USA TODAY
LONDON — British troops will begin pulling out of Iraq in March and be largely gone by July, Britain's leading newspapers and television stations reported today.
Britain was the U.S. government's closest ally during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and has remained so since. It liberated southern Iraq from Saddam Hussein's forces and has kept a presence there second only to the United States military in size.
Britain's Ministry of Defense did not confirm details of the pullout. However, the ministry said in a statement issued by spokesmen that it planned to "reduce our force levels in Iraq as we complete our key tasks in Basra in the early months of next year."
Reports in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the BBC said that all but about 300 to 400 of the roughly 4,100 British troops in Iraq would be pulled out by the end of June.
There are no plans to replace them unless the situation in Iraq deteriorated substantially and new bloodshed broke out, the news reports said in quoting unidentified defense officials. Remaining troops would stay to train Iraqi military officers, the reports indicated.
The reports said that British forces, based largely at the airport in Basra in southern Iraq, would be replaced by U.S. forces — not Iraqi-commanded troops.
The ministry, however, disputed those accounts. It indicated control of the area would be turned over to Iraqi forces — not U.S. troops.
The ministry said that because British forces would leave before U.S. troops, American forces would have to protect supply routes in southern Iraq.
Britain, which had 9,000 troops in southern Iraq three years ago, has slowly pulled down its presence there as it has faced greater pressure in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The remaining troops in Basra in southern Iraq have largely taken on an oversight role in the area, leaving more of the policing to Iraqi forces in recent months.
"The Iraqis already have the lead in providing security in Basra, and that will not change," the ministry said.
The news reports said Prime Minister Gordon Brown would announce the timetable early next year.
Although the decision to join with President Bush in the invasion was made by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Brown had supported it. After taking over from Blair in June of last year, Brown has sought to get troops out as soon as he could.
But British withdrawal has been marked by on-again, off-again target dates and by the unpredictable situation of the insurgency on the ground.
Last October, Brown said he planned to reduce forces to 2,500 by May of this year. That did not materialize, as U.S., Iraqi and British forces had to drive Iranian-backed Shiite militias out of Basra in the spring.
Following that, Brown insisted in June after a meeting here with President Bush that Britain's withdrawal would continue to depend on the situation on the ground.
After a visit in July, however, Brown said he expected a "further fundamental change of mission in the first months of 2009."
Wednesday's statement from the defense ministry seemed to echo the two sentiments of wanting to get out early next year as long as the situation in the area improved.
?We plan – subject to the conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders – to reduce our force levels in Iraq as we complete our key tasks in Basra in the early months of next year. Final decisions on the timing of the drawdown will depend on the circumstances at the time," the statement said.
U.S. troops are to pull out of Iraqi cities by July of next year and be gone from the country completely by December 2011, under an agreement reached with the Iraqi government. That timetable could be accelerated if President-elect Barack Obama follows through on campaign promises to withdraw sooner and shift forces to Afghanistan.
