United Kingdom

Brits' Stiff Upper Lip in Iraq Goes a Bit Limp

|

Britain will halve its remaining troop contingent in Iraq next spring, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Monday. A British official later said they could not guarantee that any troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2008.

Brown, under fire over his decision not to call an election for this year, said Britain would lower troop levels to 2,500 by mid-2008 and redeploy logistics staff to neighboring states. The British leader was clearly hoping the announcement would help boost his popularity among a public weary of the war….

Brown told lawmakers Monday his Iraq plan follows the success of the U.S. troop increase this summer and efforts by Iraqis to drive suspected al-Qaida militants from havens in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.

More here.

Jon Rauch on the surge.

One surge that really, really worked.

NEXT: Ron Paul Takes It to the Bank

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Prawn eating surrender monkeys!

  2. Lipetra?

    for BD (British dysfunction)?

    I guess it makes up for the priaplipism they’ve had for the last 100 years????

  3. I’m surprised Gen. Petreus hasn’t gone to the U.K. himself and administer some taint spikes…

  4. Cuz they’ve all had a Taintectomy…

  5. It’s about goddamn time.

    Bring them home right fucking now.

  6. Brown told lawmakers Monday his Iraq plan follows the success of the U.S. troop increase this summer and efforts by Iraqis to drive suspected al-Qaida militants from havens in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.

    Diplomatic checkmate! What an ingenious statement. The Bush Administration sure as hell can’t say, “No, the British troops must stay because the surge didn’t work.”

  7. The Bush Administration sure as hell can’t say, “No, the British troops must stay because the surge didn’t work.”

    And apparently no one at H & R can say “sure, the Brits can and should go home because the surge is working.”

  8. They’re not going home – they’re going to Afghanistan. Or, more precisely, the reductions in Iraq will be pretty well offset by the addition of 2000 Paras to the force in Afghanistan, not to mention the first operationally deployed Eurofighters.

  9. Oh my.
    “And apparently no one at H & R can say “sure, the Brits can and should go home because the surge is working.””
    Yes, you’re absolutely right. The addition of another ~100k troops has totally solved the political and operational issues in the country; peace and democracy are around the corner (see it? about one Friedman unit ahead, right up there, on the left), and in no way is the troop addition merely tamping down the chaos.

  10. The British are going! The British are going!

    If they can do it, why can’t we?

  11. Brits’ Stiff Upper Lip in Iraq Goes a Bit Limp

    I think there’s a pill for that nowadays.

  12. thanks for yet again stealing a comment, there Doc!

  13. The Brits know a lot more about imperialism than the neoconservatives. They’ve got a few centuries’ worth of a head start.

    They can, for example, when it’s not working, and when it’s time to stop throwing good money after bad.

  14. And apparently no one at H & R can say “sure, the Brits can and should go home because the surge is working.”

    Psst…Anbar is 1000 miles from where the Brits were deployed. Anbar is the far west of Iraq, and the Brits were deployed in the southeast.

  15. DON’T LET GEOGRAPHY GET IN THE WAY OF THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS A WARNING. NEXT TIME, THE YANKEES SHALL GET SWEPT.

  16. Oops, sorry VM.

    50 lashes with the wet noodle.

  17. oooh! stop it Doktor T!

    zat is much more strikt than what iz kalled for.

    It vas five yards, repeat the down. 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.