The British are ready to CUT and RUN. Will US Army follow them soon?

Question

According to Sunday Times, British Army will leave Basra in October and withdraw from Iraq very soon.
Do you know that Pentagon is already planning withdrawal in 2008?

OK.
Will neo-cons admit that their "surge" failed?

Gorby withdrew well-organized and keeping the order. There were no Saigon-like "cut and run" in 1989, trust me.

Answer 1

The DOD tells me (Yes...I used to work for them) they will leave in Aug/Sept 08 of next year. (The USA military will leave Iraq) This will be another Vietnam. The men who have died have died for nothing. The USA will declare a "WIN" and pull out.

Answer 2

They will if they're smart.

What's left to accomplish in this joke of an experiment? Maybe the Iraqi government can decide to take another vacation in the meantime.

Answer 3

any one of our allies can leave but the American military owes the people of Iraq due to ther way the deluded, dumb, deficient, *s* stood on a ship in front of a sign saying "Mission Accomplished" A fool and all the American peoples' money.

Remember my citizens if you elect a fool again, it will cost lots more in blood and taxes

Answer 4

LONDON (AFP) - The British backlash over the United States's handling of post-invasion Iraq grew Sunday as another top military commander blasted what he called Washington's "fatally flawed" policy.
(Advertisement)

Major General Tim Cross, the top British officer involved in planning post-war Iraq, said he raised serious concerns with then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the possibility of the country descending into chaos.

But Rumsfeld "ignored" or "dismissed" his warnings, the general told the Sunday Mirror newspaper.

On Saturday, the head of the British Army during the 2003 invasion launched a fierce attack on the United States over its handling of troubled Iraq since.

General Sir Mike Jackson branded US post-invasion policy "intellectually bankrupt" and said Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq."

His comments were criticised by John Bolton, the US's former ambassador to the United Nations, who told BBC radio Saturday he had "read into a version of history that simply is not supported by the evidence."

The comments from both top officers came as the British government has been trying to soothe reported tensions with the United States over Iraq by insisting it will not cut and run from the southern province of Basra.

General Jack Keane, a former vice-chief of staff of the US Army, said last month there was "frustration" in Washington at the deteriorating security situation in the British-run area -- triggering an angry reaction from some quarters in the British military.

The Pentagon announced this week that it was ready to intervene in southern Iraq to quell any unrest in Basra.

The Sunday Times newspaper, citing unnamed government department officials, said Britain was preparing to hand over control of Basra to the Iraqi army as early as next month.

Around 5,500 British troops are in the south training Iraqi security forces, a figure that is set to drop to 5,000 by the end of the year.

In 2003, Cross, who is now retired, was the deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

"Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan -- and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process," the 56-year-old said.

"I had lunch with Rumsfeld in Washington before the invasion in 2003 and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations.

"I also raised concerns over the numbers of troops available to maintain security and aid reconstruction.

"He didn't want to hear that message. The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy.

Cross said that he was not alone in suggesting to Rumsfeld that life in Iraq post-invasion would not be as easy as he thought.

"But he ignored my comment. He dismissed it," he added.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair on June 27, had been expected by some commentators to take a more doveish stance on Iraq.

But he has resisted calls for a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops, and a spokesman for his Downing Street office on Sunday responded to calls from opposition politicians for a full inquiry into the war by saying that there had already been three "pretty exhaustive" inquiries.

Earlier on Sunday, opposition Conservative Party foreign affairs spokesman William Hague told Sky News that his party thought "there have been many mistakes made. We would like to see a full-scale inquiry."

Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Des Browne wrote a joint article in Friday's Washington Post newspaper saying it was "time to set the record straight" after weeks of "misplaced criticism."

"The question some people have asked is: have British forces failed in Basra? The answer is no," they added.

Answer 5

Iraqa was a Bush thing and the people have never agreed to it. Bush and his vise figured out to rob the people and in the process get rich.

Answer 6

Of course

Answer 7

They will follow early or later

Answer 8

hope so we are way out of control in this thing and the price of gas is destroying our economy

Answer 9

What exactly is your question? This seems like a statement phrased as a question.

Answer 10

remember Afghanistan ? no?
Russkis got their asses wiped good before they did the CUT AND RUN, maybe Brits are smarter and it is going to take them less time...
EDIT: I was in Afghanistan and saw your *well organized* withdrawal. Don't make me laugh, please.