Could it be that the British are thinking of getting the hell out of Dodge before America decides to attack Iran? Their troops, after all, would be terribly exposed to Shiite retaliation for any attack. Might this indicate that an attack would not occur this year?

GG, you speculate this "should embolden frightened American Congressional war opponents." As someone who didn't read you until you arrived at Salon, it's a pleasure to see you have such a droll sense of humor.

I don't think Tony Blair wants to go down in history as the Prime Minister who got Princess Di's son killed in Iraq.

I mean, watch The Queen. He's got himself all bound up in their legacy now.

If only the Bush twins would enlist. Ha ha ha.

GG, you speculate this "should embolden frightened American Congressional war opponents." As someone who didn't read you until you arrived at Salon, it's a pleasure to see you have such a droll sense of humor.

To be clear, "should" in that sentence means "ought to," not "likely will."

I don't know. A promise that "a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient" sounds like the endless promises we have heard that things will settle down in one more Friedman unit and we can start withdrawing.

A promise that "a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient" sounds like the endless promises we have heard that things will settle down in one more Friedman unit and we can start withdrawing.

The withdrawal of 1,500 troops is definite and unconditional and set to a fixed timetable. The remainder appears conditioned on certain goals, but we'll see once he makes the formal announcement.

Besides the threat of war with Iran, there's another possible explanation for the change of heart: the increased frequency with which Iraqis manage to shoot down helicopters.

The salient point here is that Blair will step down, presumably over the summer, with Gordon Brown as heir presumptive. While Bush has made it clear that Iraq is a mess for his successor to clean up, Blair can't be seen as providing the cause of Brown's defeat, should that happen in 2009.

This drawdown was generally expected over the course of the year; what may accelerate its pace is the prospect of an escalation that encompasses Iran. While Whitehall sources are saying that 'the process could be slowed down if the situation in Iraq worsens', I suspect that the aim is to get out before that happens.

It sure seems like the light at the end of the Iraq tunnel is the Iran train.

I'm sure that British intel knows whether or not the US is going to start an air war over Iran. Again, this is speculation but it would be a rather smart move on the part of the Brits to get their people out the south of Iraq, where most of the Iranian influence exists.

I'm curious as to further speculation by the tin-foil hat wearing members of Unclaimed Territory if the recent changes in the law in regards to making it easier for the President to declare and implement martial law figure into our near future.

I don't think Tony Blair wants to go down in history as the Prime Minister who got Princess Di's son killed in Iraq.

Damn, here I thought I was so clever for being the first person to assume that was the real reason.

Now this is a prop being kicked out, for sure. I'd look to a more intense, fervent anti-war sentiment in UK for the reason, rather than anything specific on the ground in S. Iraq. Anyone been to Britain lately? Heard anything kind said about Bush?

But who knows. Regardless, this helps to end it.

Wow all the bad things happening for Bush and the neocons can mean only one thing: time for a huge bounce in the polls for GW!!!

Quick someone call David Broder with the great news.

You DO want our efforts in Iraq to succeed, don't you? Because statements like this:

That rather striking reversal does not appear to reflect much confidence in the prospects of success for the President's Glorious AEI Surge currently underway.

...certainly give the opposite impression.

It's one thing to oppose Bush on partisan grounds, or even to oppose the surge - but to root for its failure...well, that seems a bit...well, jeez, I don't know...maybe not how a patriot would act? (pun intended)...

Mark, it appears to have escaped your notice -- not terribly surprising considering the thickness of your ideological blinders -- but GWB's adventure in Iraq already has failed. There are still some of you tin megaphones who believe otherwise, but your numbers are diminishing. If I were you, I'd try selling something besides tickets to the victory rally. Girl Scout cookies move pretty well, although you'd probably look a little strange in a green sash.

...I'll mark you down in the 'end the war at all costs, consequences be damned' column.

Duly noted...

I had a feeling that was the kind of response my inquiry would get, I was just testing the waters...

If the USA attacks Iran the UK would have to declare neutrality if they don't want to become the target of Iranian missiles. I'd say they should get the hell out of there before they get further involved in W's debacle. Brown could also speed up the withdrawal once he takes office. Rodriguez Zapatero did it in a matter of weeks. Japan would probably get the hell out of Dodge too. Who else is left? Australia's 600 troops? Watch Howard get kicked out of office for getting his country into war with Persia. I almost wish Sharon was still around to talk some sense to this idiot. The Israelis can still save us from this disaster. They should not continue to allow Dick Cheney to dictate their foreign policy. At this point Israel is our best hope.