NYT : Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half

Monday, October 08, 2007

Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half

By JANE PERLEZ | October 9, 2007

LONDON, Oct. 8 — Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that British troops in Iraq would be reduced by half to 2,500 by next spring, and he left open the strong possibility that all British soldiers would leave Iraq by the end of 2008.

Mr. Brown said the reductions down from the current 5,000 British soldiers were possible because of the progress made in training Iraq security forces. He described the situation in Basra in southern Iraq, where the British troops are based, as “calmer.”

In his formal statement to the Parliament, Mr. Brown said that a decision would be made in the spring as to how long that reduced force of 2,500 would remain in Iraq.

At a briefing at the Foreign Office after Mr. Brown’s statement a senior British official said of the 2,500 troops that “there was no guarantee they will be there beyond the end of 2008.”

The Bush administration has made clear that the bulk of American troops will remain in Iraq at least until the end of President Bush’s term, and Mr. Bush has spoken of a military commitment extending beyond his administration.

Thus, the British intentions announced on Monday would make it likely that British soldiers, sent by Prime Minister Tony Blair as a strong commitment to the war in Iraq, would leave well before American soldiers.

In his response to the Mr. Brown in Parliament, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, seemed to sum up the content of Mr. Brown’s statement, saying, “Now the troops are coming home.”

In explaining his rationale, Mr. Brown told the Parliament: “The Iraqis are now able to take responsibility for the security themselves.” He described a two-phase process of handing over responsibility for security in Basra Province, where the British have been based since the start of the war.

It would start with British forces training and mentoring Iraqi security forces, securing supply routes to the Iranian border and being able to provide backup to local security forces. In the second phase, starting in the spring of 2008, British troops would retain a more limited ability to intervene by force, Mr. Brown said.

The troops would be reduced from the approximately 5,000 now in Basra to 4,500 and then to 4,000. Levels would fall to 2,500 by spring, Mr. Brown said.

During the statements in Parliament, thousands of antiwar demonstrators clogged the streets outside chanting slogans and carrying banners calling for the return of British soldiers.

At the Foreign Office briefing, the senior British official said that the reductions in British troops, including the reduction announced Monday, had been discussed in detail with the American commander Gen. David H. Petraeus. “It is a number with which General Petraeus is content,” the official said.

The 2,500 British forces would be stationed at the Basra Air Station, and they would be involved almost entirely in training for two divisions of Iraqi soldiers, the official said.

About 500 British troops, serving support roles to those in Iraq, would be based in a neighboring country, the official said, indicating Kuwait.

In determining the size of the reduction of the British troops, Mr. Brown has had to deal with three constituencies: the British electorate, with whom the Iraq war is unpopular; the British Army, whose commanders have complained about the Iraq deployment stretching the military too far; and the White House.

The announcement effectively meant that all British troops would be out by the end of 2008, said Toby Dodge, a senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and a specialist in Iraq affairs. Mr. Brown wanted “British troops out of Basra by the British election,” which is likely to be held in 2009, Mr. Dodge said.

The reduced numbers were also welcomed by the British army commanders, he said.

Despite the statements by the British that the Pentagon was satisfied, Mr. Dodge said he believed the “White House is deeply uneasy by this decision.” He cited remarks by Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the American troop increase this year, who has expressed frustration at the disengagement of British forces in Basra.

In his statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown also sought to defuse an outcry over the future of Iraqi civilians who had worked with the British troops. Iraqis who had worked alongside the British for more than 12 months would be eligible for aid and emigration to other countries, including possibly Britain, he said.

At a news conference at 10 Downing Street before his Commons statement, Mr. Brown was bombarded by questions about why he allowed election fever to boil and then backed away from calling a poll.

"Yes, I did consider holding an election,” Mr. Brown said. “Yes, I looked at it.”

But in the end, he said he followed his "first instinct" to take more time to show voters his vision for the country, particularly in housing, education and health.

Mr. Brown insisted that opinion surveys had not influenced his decision. "I happen to believe we would win at any time," he said.

Opinion surveys published in the British press over the weekend showed that the Conservative party had made inroads into swing seats now held by the Labor Party. A plan to by the Conservatives to cut the inheritance tax, announced at their annual conference last week, had special appeal in those seats, the surveys showed.

The British news media reported Monday that Mr. Brown would probably have won a November election but the current majority of over 60 seats would most likely have shrunk substantially. The surveys showed the electorate to be volatile after both the Labor Party and the Conservative Party held their conferences, and after the surprisingly successful conference speech of the Conservative leader, David Cameron.

Mr. Brown said today that an election was "not likely" in 2008. He must call one by 2010.