Did you know Britain already down to 8500 troops in Iraq from 30,000?

[Inland]

The news that the UK is planning to reduce its presence in Iraq to Poland-level numbers is less striking than how much it has already--quietly--reduced the numbers of Brit troops at risk.

The UK had about 30,000 troops involved in the invasion and is down to 8500.

The US, on the other hand, had about 160,000 involved in the invasion and is down to about 140,000. If the US had reduced its levels comparably, we would be down to 45,000.

So here's what I think the deal is: Bush doesn't complain about Blair drawing down to a token force, and Blair doesn't criticize the handling of the war by Bush or state that he is drawing down for any particular reason. Good for Blair, who gets his guys home; Good for Bush, who uses the token UK force as proof of a coalition with our stalwart ally Britain; in fact, the only people its NOT good for is the US troops and Iraqis who are stuck with the burden. That's not Blair's fault, but Bush's fault for making escaping blame the priority. Again.

[TheFarseer]

1. Their part of Iraq is pretty quiet

not a big need for lots of troops.

[Inland]

2. And they aren't asked to help out the areas that aren't quiet.

Seems to me to be part of the deal.