The Clipboard: UK plans south Iraq security handover in months

From an article¹:

British troops in southern Iraq expect to hand over control of security to local Iraqi defence and police forces within a year, according to the senior British police officer overseeing their training.

"I would expect that within the next six to nine months in certain areas under British military control, the day to day running of security will be handed over entirely to the Iraqis," said Paul Kernaghan, the British police force's main spokesman on international affairs...

...While he refused to go into operational details, his prediction appears to coincide with plans being put in place at the Ministry of Defence for the deployment of extra British troops to Afghanistan, with the suggestion that this will involve a reduction in the British military presence in Iraq.

According to other security sources, the military plan is for a two-phase programme of British demilitarisation in the southern area of Iraq.

Under a first phase expected to be under way by March of next year, British troops would withdraw to main army bases from forward operational duties, with the capacity to offer support to Iraqi police and defence forces if needed.

A second phase would involve a phased withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, although a final decision on this has yet to be taken, and will depend on what progress is made in stabilising security. Mr Kernaghan described security in southern Iraq as "relatively stable" compared with Baghdad, where "you cannot safely go by road from the airport to the city centre" (link)

This story was first reported on April 3 by the Telegraph: Britain to pull 5,500 troops out of Iraq. It was also carried in the Scotsman on April 4: British to lead new hunt for Bin Laden. The Afghanistan deployment is with NATO, as indicated by the Telegraph and Scotsman. The next mention I found of this was on April 24 in the Times of London: British troops to target Afghan opium trade. However, the story got basically no real notice anywhere that I saw at the time and all was quiet until May 22 when the Scotsman came back with: Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis (if anybody actually reads this blog, it was mentioned in my post on Afghanistan: The forgotten conflict, a companion article in the Scotsman). A couple more articles since then are this one from May 29 in the Observer: British to assault Taliban stronghold, and this one from just yesterday in Al-Jazeera: NATO expands Afghan role.

But the really funny thing is that I first saw this plan being mentioned back in September 2004; I was able to find the articles archived here.

So the British are getting the hell out of Iraq. When will we?

Update 6/8: The first story in the U.S. media, from the Washington Times, British consider partial pull-out.

Update 6/13: On the Afghanistan end, British newspaper the Mirror reports, Blair to send 5,000 troops to help Bush, and the Guardian follows up with UK to send more troops to Afghanistan. According to these stories, British officials formally announced this at a NATO meeting. The Guardian's story confirms the subtext that the proposed withdrawal from Iraq and the planned deployment to Afghanistan are connected.

Later on 6/13: It's official. The Telegraph reports that the announcement was made by the British military's chief of operations confirming both the withdrawal from Iraq and the deployment to Aghanistan. Yahoo News carries this story, citing the Telegraph, as Britain to reduce troops in Iraq, send more to Afghanistan: newspaper

Update 7/4: There were recent reports that the U.S. was pressuring the British to stay in Iraq, and for a bit it looked like Blair might be caving, but the withdrawal plan is still on, according to the Financial Times. The Guardian confirms.

Update 7/9: Reuters (picked up by Yahoo News, Al-Jazeera, the New York Times, the BBC, China's Xinhua, MSNBC, Washington Post, Guardian, more) reports on a Daily Mail story on a leaked MoD memo (yes, more leaked memos) that again mentions the British withdrawal from Iraq - and that the Pentagon is planning its own substantial pullback from Iraq by summer 2006 (but that's a whole nother story). Daily Mail follows up here with a story about ministers facing questions. Then Michael Smith (of Downing Street Memo fame) reports in the Sunday Times that UK in talks to hand Iraq role to Australia. Now it all comes together.

Update 7/11: Australia denies the Times story, although an official denial these days doesn't seem worth the paper it's written on. In any case, here's another denial. Later: A new story says that they can't send any more because they've already been replacing British troops. Eh?

Update 7/17: Reid on CNN (via Al-Jazeera and confirmed by the Scotsman, the Australian, the Guardian, the Mail, mentioned in the Times) confirms that the British plan withdrawal over the next 12 months, and some commentary from Scotland's Sunday Herald: Pressure grows on Britain to timetable withdrawal from Iraq

Update 7/27: In the wake of American announcements about a planned drawdown in 2006, Blair confirms that this is the British plan as well. The Telegraph reports the same story as Blair pledge to get forces out as soon as possible.

Update 8/2: Actual action is now being taken, rather than just talk. Also, as Juan Cole notes, British foreign minister Straw would only have said this if the British really are planning to get out in the next year. I cannot believe Straw actually said that!! Was he out of his mind? He would have to be, as a politician, to be telling the truth like that!

Update 8/9: Is the plan now off again? At least they're not planning to increase before they decrease as the Americans are doing.

Update 9/11: Whatever is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan is still on, and every indication has been that the Iraq drawdown will be necessary for the Afghanistan deplyment to go ahead because the British Army is too overstretched to sustain both.

Update 9/13: According to the Japanese, the British and Australians are planning to withdraw from Iraq by the middle of 2006, although Reid claims that no such withdrawal is planned and that the British Army can handle both deployments at the same time (this is a rather dubious claim, from all evidence).

Update 9/17: Well this is not good. Plan to cut number of UK troops is scrapped. Quote of interest:

Last night, senior officers accused the Government of having a "head-in-the-sand mentality" over Britain's defence requirements and its involvement in Iraq, where more than 200 civilians were killed in terrorists attack last week alone. They said the Army - which is also sending 3,000 extra troops to Afghanistan next April - was under-manned, "strapped for cash" and being "dangerously overstretched".

Something is going to give at some point, the only question is what.

Update 9/20: In the wake of a growing crisis in Basra, Military anger at delay to Iraq pull-out plan. But the concerns about overstretch remain and are mentioned in the article.

Update 9/24: The Telegraph (1, 2) has been reporting that the British will stay in Iraq through the end of 2006. And the Scotsman echoes the Guardian report in the previous update, as well as alluding to the Japanese report cited on 9/13. But the Guardian says Britain to pull troops from Iraq as Blair says 'don't force me out'. Note that according to the BBC, the British government is denying this.

Aside: Was the May 9 Guardian column, The job is done, a hint of things to come?

---

Complete text of the article, UK plans south Iraq security handover in months, by Jimmy Burns

British troops in southern Iraq expect to hand over control of security to local Iraqi defence and police forces within a year, according to the senior British police officer overseeing their training.

"I would expect that within the next six to nine months in certain areas under British military control, the day to day running of security will be handed over entirely to the Iraqis," said Paul Kernaghan, the British police force's main spokesman on international affairs.

Mr Kernaghan was speaking fresh from an inspection of British police who are training Iraqi police and defence forces and acting as security advisers in southern Iraq.

While he refused to go into operational details, his prediction appears to coincide with plans being put in place at the Ministry of Defence for the deployment of extra British troops to Afghanistan, with the suggestion that this will involve a reduction in the British military presence in Iraq.

According to other security sources, the military plan is for a two-phase programme of British demilitarisation in the southern area of Iraq.

Under a first phase expected to be under way by March of next year, British troops would withdraw to main army bases from forward operational duties, with the capacity to offer support to Iraqi police and defence forces if needed.

A second phase would involve a phased withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, although a final decision on this has yet to be taken, and will depend on what progress is made in stabilising security. Mr Kernaghan described security in southern Iraq as "relatively stable" compared with Baghdad, where "you cannot safely go by road from the airport to the city centre".

He said British trainers and advisers were making a contribution to the development of an accountable local police force, an effort he said was not adequately recognised back in the UK.

The 24-strong team of British police in southern Iraq is supported by 70 civilian private security staff employed by Armor Holdings, who are under contract with the British Foreign Office.

In a report to the British government following his return from Iraq earlier this month, Mr Kernaghan argued that British police involvement in Iraq deserved service "medals" and greater recognition that such duties were beneficial to officers' career prospects.

Earlier this year Mr Kernaghan, who combines his international brief with his duties as Chief Constable of Hampshire police force, gave evidence to the House of Commons defence select committee in which he criticised the lack of planning that preceded the decision to deploy British police to Iraq from the spring of 2003.

reference=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6767fd48-d2b5-11d9-bead-00000e2511c8.html