White House points out Iraq "success" indicator

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that they were withdrawing troops. Granted most headlines make this seem more severe, it looks like they're taking total troop levels from 7100 to 5000 "if Iraqi forces can secure the country’s south." Probably a big "if" and he coats the potential for total withdrawal by saying troops will stay "in Iraq until at least 2008." I read this like .99 cents is not a dollar. A half-empty reading of his words says troops will be there through the end of the year, or another 10 months, until 2008 is really the end of 2007, but saying 2008 makes it sound longer.

Not only that but Denmark and Lithuania are pulling troops too. Thats nearly 500 troops, gone. Looks like the "Coalition of the Willing" is becoming more and more unwilling.

But not to fear, the White House spin machine is on the case. Says Condi,

“The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits. The coalition remains intact and, in fact, the British still have thousands of troops deployed in Iraq.”

And says White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe "We view this as a success." And not to be left out, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq.

Success all around. But why is it a success that the British are pulling out troops as we're bringing them in? Wouldn't it be much better if the British were reassigning troops to the same areas that we're sending more of our own? If the "coalition" was still in tact, wouldn't they be rushing to help where its needed? W's compared this war to every "good" war in US history, so I'll pick WWII as an analogy. The Allies didn't pack up and go home when they won a battle and secured land. They did that and moved on to wherever else they were needed, and kept at it until the war was over. While the "war on terror" will never be over, I assume at some point, the Iraq war will be. Why are our coalition parters leaving before the party's over, and why is the White House calling that a sign of "success?"

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a "success." Success would be securing the area, moving on to help elsewhere, while making sure the left area didn't backtrack. I see this as the Brits declaring victory and going home.