But it's our fine govt at work.

>>Did you read the article in Time, I think last weeks cover story. There is an Afghan warlord who came across as having all the right intentions. Help the US to unite the tribes. Throw out the Taliban. Help rebuild Afghanistan, yada, yada, yada.
>>
>>So the US govt brings him to the US. Puts him up in a very nice hotel in NY and puts together a meeting with him and 10 or so US govt officials who are going to debrief him.
>>
>>At the end, 2 of the officials standup to announce he is under arrest. They are from the DEA and he comes from a family that is known to own several big poppy fields.
>>
>>What they did to the production of heroin by arresting him, I don't know. But try to find another warlord willing to work with the US govt? The answer to that question I know.
>
>
>What a mistake!
>
>>
>>>Afghanistan has oil, gas, coal and the world’s largest supply of heroin. How nice.
>>>
>>>>Especially as Afghanistan is viewed as a righteous cause, too.
>>>>
>>>>>Something like that. But in this case someone at the top finally realized that at the current rate, there would be 2 failures on the books. And that sending everyone to Afghanistan offers the most hope of at least 1 victory.
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" or what!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I haven't researched how the UK newspapers are framing this, but the LA Times had a big article about the Blair's announcement about Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>According to interviews with UK military leaders the primary reason for leaving Iraq is not about prgress in Iraq, but it's about failure in Afghanistan. The Taliban is making a big resergence there. And the leaders feel that splitting between Iraq and Afghanistan means certain failure in both places. So they are pulling from Iraq to prop up the effort in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A bit unfair that. There have been about the same no. of fatalities, per capita (i.e. proportion), as the in the US section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>BTW Tracy, they are British soldiers, not English; even not allowing for Scottish regiments there may well be English, Welsh, Scottish and NI troops in any British group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We're not yet devolved, but if the Scottish Nationalist (cf Quebecois) get their way then one day you guys may be right. Even then it's unlikely the British Army will become the English Army.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Actually, word of mouth in the troops is that England got the locations in the south where the Iraqi troops are better trained, organized, and capable of taking over. Less strife among clicks. It was somewhat of a 'contention' with U.S. soldiers in the really hot areas. That is not to say that it was safe - far from it. It was just as dangerous as other locations. But realistically, it is somewhat like the difference between the B section and C section of Fulton prison in California. Your odds are better in C than B (or is it the reverse?). Yet both are so dangerous that you really are not expected to survive. The Iraqi troops in that area have notified the authorities that they are ready to assume control.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>According to the BBC Tony Blair is expected to announce on Wednesday that the last British troops in Iraq will be phased out. 1500 of the remaining 7000 UK troops in Iraq will be called home soon and the rest on a schedule to be defined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It never really was an international coalition like the first Gulf War. IMO this seals it that the U.S. is going this alone. We're the last to figure out what a bad idea this was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tony Blair can't be announcing this for political reasons because his career has already been wrecked by his steadfastness with the U.S. in Iraq. He is an even lamer duck than President Bush. In the end he is doing what he thinks is right. Good for him.