Vance
01-05-2004, 04:33 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=4&u=/nm/20040105/wl_nm/iraq_britain_troops_dc_2
LONDON (*******) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Monday British troops were likely to stay in Iraq (news - web sites) for years, possibly until 2007, to try to stabilize a country in the face of an insurgency against occupying forces.
With guerrillas staging daily attacks on U.S-led forces in Iraq, Poland's president said NATO (news - web sites) may decide in June whether to take on more of the burden. But NATO's new secretary-general said the alliance's top priority for the moment was Afghanistan (news - web sites).
While other countries including Poland have contingents in Iraq, U.S. troops form the vast majority of occupation forces. Britain was Washington's chief ally in the March invasion despite domestic opposition and has more than 10,000 troops there.
Speaking on BBC radio a day after Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) paid a surprise visit to British soldiers in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, Straw said it was "a fact" that substantial numbers of troops would remain in Iraq for a long time to come.
"I can't give you an exact timescale...but it's not going to be months, for sure," Straw said. Asked whether it would be years, he replied: "Yes, but I can't say whether it's going to be 2006 or 2007."
U.S. administrators in Iraq have set a timetable to transfer power to Iraqis by the end of June but say foreign troops will stay on after the handover.
During his visit to Basra, Blair urged soldiers to concentrate on winning the peace and indicated they would be there for the long haul.
Straw said British troops were key to providing stability for a political process that includes plans to select an Iraqi national assembly by the end of May.
"If we were suddenly to pull out, there would unquestionably be a security vacuum," he said. "And that would not only put lives at risk...but it would also be a setback for the political process."
10 bucks says I'm going to Iraq.
LONDON (*******) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Monday British troops were likely to stay in Iraq (news - web sites) for years, possibly until 2007, to try to stabilize a country in the face of an insurgency against occupying forces.
With guerrillas staging daily attacks on U.S-led forces in Iraq, Poland's president said NATO (news - web sites) may decide in June whether to take on more of the burden. But NATO's new secretary-general said the alliance's top priority for the moment was Afghanistan (news - web sites).
While other countries including Poland have contingents in Iraq, U.S. troops form the vast majority of occupation forces. Britain was Washington's chief ally in the March invasion despite domestic opposition and has more than 10,000 troops there.
Speaking on BBC radio a day after Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) paid a surprise visit to British soldiers in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, Straw said it was "a fact" that substantial numbers of troops would remain in Iraq for a long time to come.
"I can't give you an exact timescale...but it's not going to be months, for sure," Straw said. Asked whether it would be years, he replied: "Yes, but I can't say whether it's going to be 2006 or 2007."
U.S. administrators in Iraq have set a timetable to transfer power to Iraqis by the end of June but say foreign troops will stay on after the handover.
During his visit to Basra, Blair urged soldiers to concentrate on winning the peace and indicated they would be there for the long haul.
Straw said British troops were key to providing stability for a political process that includes plans to select an Iraqi national assembly by the end of May.
"If we were suddenly to pull out, there would unquestionably be a security vacuum," he said. "And that would not only put lives at risk...but it would also be a setback for the political process."
10 bucks says I'm going to Iraq.