Really, is there anything else we need to know about him?

When I heard Cheney's comments about the British withdrawal I immediately wondered -- if their reason for leaving is really success at Basra -- why they couldn't be redeployed around Baghdad to help with our surge. Wouldn't that be logical?

I have to believe that the true reason for the British departure is their acknowledgement of a hopeless situation.

It’s called a Clusterfck people and it getting worse everyday. I live in the South and it’s eerie to here the brain dead yobos parrot the party line everyday. God help us, when will this end.

Could it be the British are leaving to clear the way for coming killing ground with persians? just as the french did in vietnam to us.

I think there are a few reasons for the British withdrawal.

As in the US, only more so, the Iraq war has vitually no support back home any more, with a lot of pressure to get the troops back. It's just been announced that they're going to send another 1000 troops to Afghanistan to bolster operations there, so the hope is that the news of troop reductions in Iraq will soften the blow.

Plus, Afghanistan is seen as maybe 'winnable' and Iraq is plainly not (although Blair pretends otherwise). And Blair is thinking about his 'legacy' when he goes in a few months time: some level af success in Afghanistan and a total mess in Iraq is better than no success in Afghanistan and a total mess in Iraq.

It might even be true that Iraqi troops are capable of holding the fort on their own but, as Juan Cole points out, this seems unlikely.

With such a great success suddenly apparent in Basra, perhaps VP Cheney will be making a surprise visit to Basra for a proper celebration - a sort of "victory lap". Actually, I guess it wasn't necessary to say SURPRISE visit - because ALL visits to Iraq by important American officials are now made without prior announcement. Things really are going well - and relaxed enough to allow a "do-drop-in" diplomatic protocol, even at the highest levels!

Maybe the British are just replacing the troops with some of those famously Un-Armed, charmingly English Policemen (once known as "Bobbies") - you know, like the ones on "Thomas the Tank Engine" or "Penny Lane"!

Juan,

Thanks for your timely article. I was particularly interested to read:

"The departure has only been slowed, for the moment, by the pleas of Bush administration officials like Cheney."

are you referring here to Khalized's protest (which you refer to later in your article), or were there other attempts by the WH to alter or delay the UK decision to draw down? And if so, can you point them out?

This decision (as with all future decisions on Iraq) was taken in the context of America’s failure to deliver on any of its promises.

Another timely informative article by Juan Cole.

Cheney is either a horrible liar or delusional. I'm not sure which is worse.

Juan Cole and Glenn Greenwald are tops.

We are lucky to have them.

My guess is that Tony Blair knows something you and I don't. What he's been told is the exact date the U.S. will launch its attack on Iran. He doesn't want the British garrison in Basra - 15 miles from the Iranian border - to get caught in the middle.

not to mention the other imminent smaller pull outs: apparently Cheney plans to business-as-usual lie his way through ...

However, in the long run, this will be a void that Bush/Cheney cannot totally ignore as they ignore congress and the american people and world opinion at large. I think another layer of Bush/Cheney diehards are likely to be out of the fold by such ludicrious statements accompanied by the inappropriate smiles of Mr. Cheney.

God willing, FINALLY, this will hit them where it hurts. At least SOME of these forces will need to be replaced, if simply for bureaucratic purposes, unless -- as we did in Afghanistan -- we simply want to close the door and toss the key, declare victory and decamp to "more important things" in Baghdad.

This "realignment" may make a de facto Shi'ite state in the south the reality beyond anyone's control. While Sadr does not want a tripartite Iraq, the realities of incremental "ethnic cleansing" and Sunni flight, may create a reality beyond his or anyone else's control. I suspect a further exodus of the remaining Sunni population when the British decamp is likely. The actions or inaction or running for the hills of whatever local governments exist is another canary in this coal mine.

I doubt that Al-Sadr has sufficient hold to drive the militia squabbling underground to effect the appearance of "calm" sufficient to allow us to declare a miraculous transition has occured, "turn it over to the Iraqis", and stay in Baghdad. Similar edicts by him wrt Baghdad have so far kept "the surge" out of Sadr City by creating a "calm" no one wants to break.

The British with their better forces and better tactics had so little control -- barely keeping militias in check -- that my suspicion is it would take more than their number and then some for us to reach that level of effectiveness, particularly given the throwing-gasoline-on-the-fire reaction to our very presence not to mention our "tactics"(boo hiss). If we attempt to replace the British, imho, things will definitely get worse for everyone before ... whatever... they get even worser?

We'll see. We're not driving event.

The Americans are not...same old story different war.

Nobody is as smart or as tough as Commander in Chief George...and his loyal midwest hooligans.

Keep it on the down-low.

I hear Nancy knelt in service to her counry to put the pressure on Bush - supposedly by relieving a little of Tony's pressure....shhhhh...no-one knows yet.

Props to Nancy -

She is our girl,

If tough talk fails,

Just give it a swirl....

Go Nancy...