Slouching toward withdrawal

I’ve been reading the account in today’s London Mail on Sunday of the leaked memo in which British Defence Minister John Reid last month set out plans to withdraw some 5,500 of the 8,500 troops the UK has in Iraq, between now and April 2006.
The article also said that “Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in [total Allied troops] from 176,000 down to 66,000.”
Monday’s Guardian has a follow-up piece on the same topic (which the Guardian also partially covered in an earlier piece, last week.)
In the UK, the calculus of military and financial realism that has driven Reid to this position seems significantly further developed than any parallel calculus is, yet, in Washington. Or maybe the planners both sides of the Atlantic are in the same place– but the willingness of their bosses to “allow” leaks of their plans is at a different stage?
Anyway, the military leakers in London– who did such a good job getting the Downing Street memo out to the public– still seem to be alive and well, getting this memo, which was marked “Secret – UK eyes only” out to the broader public in a fairly timely fashion.
It is a total delight to me to see that despite all the sad and idiotic rhetoric that the pols both sides of the Atlantic continue to voice about “staying the course” in Iraq, etc, there are smart and realistic minds at work in the British Defence Ministry who recognize an imminent strategic defeat when they see one, and are able to to start to plan appropriate actions to minimize their country’s losses.
The Mail on Sunday story, by Simon Walters, says that the document in question, which is titled Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, was “prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks”. The Guardian account, a little more explicitly, says the doc was “put to a cabinet committee chaired by Tony Blair”. But it doesn’t say when.
The MOS reported that,

Mr Reid states that his proposal is not yet a “ministerially endorsed position” – or Government policy – though he clearly believes it should be.

Also, this:

The Ministry of Defence last night confirmed the leaked document was genuine. Mr Reid said: “This is but one of a number of papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. We have made it plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decisions on the future of UK forces have been taken.
“But we have always said it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases. We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options. This is prudent planning.”

Yeah, right. So I wonder what other “options” (if any) they’ve been actively canvassing? Quite possibly, no other options. Quite possibly, this one, or something revised only very slightly from it, is IT.
So, given that defense planning in London is carried out in close coordination with that in Washington, what does this memo tell us about the state of thinking in the Pentagon?

The MoS reports that:

The memo leaves little doubt that the British plan to take their lead from the White House, where an increasingly unpopular Mr Bush is under huge pressure from the US public to bring American troops home fast.
The paper says it “sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution, and the impact on UK decision making”.
It says Mr Bush’s allies in the Pentagon and Centcom, or Central Command, are at odds with Army chiefs in Iraq, who fear it is too soon to withdraw in such large numbers.
The document states: “There is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions.
“Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in [Allied troops] from 176,000 down to 66,000. There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and the multinational force in Iraq [that is, the commanders on the ground], whose approach is more cautious.”

I see that Juan Cole today wrote— with what seemed to be some consternation, or at least perplexity?–

What in the world, then is actually going on? In practice, I think the withdrawal plan implies a willingness to turn the five northern provinces over to the Kurdish Peshmerga paramilitary, and the 9 southern provinces over to a combination of Shiite militias and new Iraqi government security forces (Interior Ministry gendarmes and regular army). And, I think this obviously desperate plan really risks damaging the integrity of Iraq as a nation-state. But, it is unlikely that for the US to remain at its present force levels would help maintain that integrity, anyway.

The strategic geography of what is revealed in the British memo does indeed indicate that this approach of splitting the country into three zones of influence might be the emerging Pentagon plan. (If so, the “southern” zone would certainly come under strong influence from Iran. It is significant in this context that the Iraqi Defense Minister has just been in Iran, coordinating various joint military plans with his Iranian counterpart.)
If this is the plan, then the US would essentially be withdrawing into the center of the country and–crucially– would risk forfeiting control of its supply routes up from Basra. In that case, it would become even more reliant than hitherto on supply lines running through Jordan, and perhaps also Turkey.
Back a couple of weeks ago when I was writing the JWN post, “Dimensions of the pullback to come”, I did of course mention the very live possibility of the the US seeking in the first instance a partial pullback of its forces. However, the idea of undertaking this consolidation in four central provinces of the country had not at that point occurred to me. (Of course, if the five northern provinces are handed over to, in effect, the Pesh Merga, they would also be hospitable places for US influence… Mind you, I don’t see the Pesh Merga being able to take over Mosul and Kirkuk in any stable or lasting way… )
Looking at the map of where the country’s 18 provinces are, it would seem that if the US/UK troops are planning to stay in four of them, these might likely be: Al-Anbar, Baghdad (which is of course extremely populous), Salah al-Din, and Diyala. Anbar would give this US redoubt good access to Jordan and the ability to threaten Syria. Diyala would give it some ability to threaten Iran.
So maybe that is the plan that is now being considered in the Pentagon?
It won’t work as a longterm outcome, of course. Baghdad and Anbar will continue to be extremely troublesome for the Americans, and several of those northern cities for their allies, the Kurdish parties. In addition, the desire of the majoprity of Iraqis for national unity remains strong.
But if Washington is now in the mindset to consider some retrenchment of its military position in Iraq, that’s already one good step forward, that we should celebrate.
I just think that for reasons of pragmatism as well as principle it needs to go “all the way”.
US troops out of Iraq by April 2006, I say. Give the Iraqi people back their country.