New York Times Publishes Dishonest Blurb on Troop Reductions
Surprise! The New York Times is distorting the facts on the ground in Iraq.
On its editorial page todayThe New York Times is blatantly twisting the truth:
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years…
So… Why exactly did the Brits reduce forces in Iraq?
Was it a cut and run in defeat as The New York Times suggests? After all, that is what the NYT and democrats have wanted to do all along, isn’t it?
Or, were there other reasons for the British troop reductions in southern Iraq?
Iraqi security forces celebrate during a handover ceremony in the Shiite city of Najaf. Iraqi soldiers and police took charge of security in Najaf and its province, at a colourful and optimistic jamboree on December 20, 2006. (Qassem Zein/AFP)
The truth is that progress in the Iraqi security forces made it possible for the UK to scale down troop levels in southern Iraq.
The fact that the Brits reduced their forces from 30,000 to 5,000 is not because they were defeated in a civil war as the NYT would like you to believe.
The Brits were planning on reducing forces all along based on progress of the Iraqi troops and stabilization of the region.
That is the reason why troops were reduced.
And, the British troop reduction is no secret. Great Britain announced their plans several times since 2003.
For The New York Times to suggest that this withdrawal is the same as a cut and run is just dishonest reporting.
Jules Crittenden calls this new approach “a more responsible rush to abandonment.”