Britain to cut its force in Iraq by half

Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half By JANE PERLEZ LONDON, Oct. 8 — Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that the number of 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 were possible because of the progress made in training Iraq security forces. He described the situation in Basra, the southern Iraqi city where the British troops are based, as “calmer.” In his formal statement to 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, speaking of that reduced force, said 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 former Prime Minister Tony Blair as a strong commitment to the war in Iraq, would leave well before American soldiers do. In his response to Mr. Brown in Parliament, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, seemed to sum up 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. The process starts with British forces training and mentoring Iraqi security forces, securing supply routes to the Iranian border and providing backup to local security forces when needed. In the second phase, starting in the spring of 2008, British troops will retain a more limited ability to intervene by force, Mr. Brown said. Troop levels will decline in stages, from the approximately 5,000 now in Basra Province to 4,500 and then to 4,000. Levels will fall to 2,500 by spring, Mr. Brown said. During the session in Parliament, thousands of antiwar demonstrators clogged the streets outside chanting slogans and carrying banners calling for the return of all British soldiers from Iraq. At the Foreign Office briefing, the senior British official said that the troop reductions had been discussed in detail with the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus. “It is a number with which General Petraeus is content,” the official said. The 2,500 British forces remaining after next spring will be stationed at the Basra Air Station, and they will be involved almost entirely in preparing trainers for two divisions of Iraqi soldiers, the official said. About 500 more British troops, serving support roles to those in Iraq, would be based in a neighboring country, the official said, and he indicated that Kuwait was the most likely location. In determining how much to reduce British force levels in Iraq, 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. Mr. Brown’s announcement effectively means that all British troops will be out of Iraq 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. He said that Mr. Brown wanted “British troops out of Basra by the British election,” which is likely to be held in 2009. 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 that the White House was “deeply uneasy” over the 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 at special risk of attack because they 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, possibly including Britain, he said. At a news conference at 10 Downing Street before his Commons statement, Mr. Brown was bombarded with questions about why he had allowed speculation about an early election 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. Some 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 today 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 Mr. Cameron, the Conservative leader. Mr. Brown said today that an election was "not likely" in 2008. He must call one by 2010.