"For us to set an arbitrary timetable . . . would send the most disastrous signal to the people whom we are fighting in Iraq," he said. "It is a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is deeply irresponsible."A commenter suggests that Blair's decision may be grounded in an expectation of some sort of imminent conflict between the U.S. and Iran. I wonder if anyone has asked Howard about that?
- Blair, January 24, 2007
I am also wondering if a decrease in British forces down South, coupled with a "surge" in US forces around Baghdad, might not inevitably draw more violence away from Baghdad and into Basra? A spike in violence around Basra would quickly disprove Blair's argument that things are getting better. Would he re-commit UK troops, or is the matter now out of his hands?
