Memo, memo, who's got the memo?

I have to admit that I've been skeptical about the latest leaked memo from the British government, this one saying that the US and the UK are actually secretly planning to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year. I find the timing - just as calls for a timetable and/or a deadline for withdrawal are gaining enough traction among the US public to start some mutterings in Congress - more than a little suspicious. "Don't worry," the message becomes, "it's already in the works. Just hang on." Iraqization, it seems, is well in hand.

But since UK Defense Secretary John Reid, the memo's author, has acknowledged its authenticity, I'll put aside my tendency to raise question marks over anything the White creeps (-hall or House) do and consider the memo on its own terms. (Although the memo being genuine does not mean it wasn't deliberately leaked to undermine calls for withdrawal.)

As you likely know, the memo, reported by the Mail on Sunday (UK),

reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later. ...

The document [also] 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 (brackets in original)] 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, whose approach is more cautious."

The UK contingent would be reduced from about 8,500 presently to about 3,000 a year from now, a "minimal" presence.

The meaning of the cut in US forces is more complex. The Christian Science Monitor's Daily Update for Monday quotes Reuters as saying a cut to 66,000

would leave manpower for just two full US divisions. Enough, probably, to prevent Iraqi militia from contemplating all-out sectarian war, but not enough to participate in day-to-day patrolling of most of the country.

That is, the idea is to withdraw enough troops to look really good at home without having all hell break loose before the 2006 elections. If the timing of the leak isn't suspicious, I think that damn well is.

What's also worth considering is how this withdrawal is going to be achieved. CSM quotes Juan Cole of Informed Comment as saying

[i]n 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.

This version of an "exit strategy," proposing to leave different portions of Iraq in the hands of different ethic or sectarian militias, looks a great deal like a Henry Kissinger-style "decent interval" where the important thing isn't the disaster waiting to happen but insuring that we don't get blamed for it.

Footnote: The memo says that the withdrawal plans are not a "ministerially endorsed position" - but it also said what is:

The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East.
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.

That is, it's the formal position of the Blair government that the UK will do absolutely nothing more in Iraq than it already is. Sounds like, despite the public butt-kissing, even Shrub's most loyal ally is not a particularly happy camper.