Britain to Withdraw Troops from Iraq by May 2009

Hello, gentle blog reader,

The British press reports that Gordon Brown will announce Britain’s withdrawal from Iraq by May of 2009. 

Given Britain is our #1 ally in the “fight against terrorism,” I can’t help but suspect the US will pull out troops by May of next year too rather than go it alone in the land of our enemies.

How about you–what do you think?

Bobbi

Here’s the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3814670/Britain-to-withdraw-from-Iraq-by-the-end-of-next-May.html

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor in Baghdad
Last Updated: 12:03AM GMT 18 Dec 2008

Gordon Brown: Britain to withdraw from Iraq by the end of next May Photo: REUTERS

The Prime Minister, who visited Iraq yesterday, has announced that Britain’s 4,100 remaining troops will withdraw by next summer.

The exact timetable for the withdrawal will be set out to MPs in a House of Commons statement today.

Troops are expected to begin leaving the British base in Basra in March. The majority of troops will leave in May with a complete withdrawal by the end of July.

The operation will have formally ended by May 31 2009 – just over six years after it first began.

A memorial to deceased British troops built in Basra is expected to be carefully dismantled and rebuilt in the UK. The British headquarters in the Iraqi city are eventually planned to be converted to a hotel.

The announcement will end one of the most controversial chapters in recent military history. More than 40,000 British troops were involved in the initial invasion and about 100,000 members of the armed forces have served in Iraq.

178 Britons have lost their lives during the conflict. Although Mr Brown sparked controversy yesterday after wrongly stating that only 176 troops had died when paying tribute to the work of the armed forces.

Mr Brown welcomed the planned troop pull-out saying that Britain had achieved what it had set out to.

“It is important to remember we have been engaged in the most difficult and challenging of work,” he said.

“The tasks of overthrowing a dictatorship, the task of building a democracy for the future and defending it against terrorism.”

“We have made a huge contribution and of course given people an economic stake in the future of Iraq. We leave Iraq a better place.”

He added: “I am proud of the contribution British forces have made. They are the pride of Britain and the best in the world.”

About 4,000 Americans will be deployed in Basra after the British withdrawal sparking allegations that we are leaving the country prematurely.

Britain is also expected to come under pressure to redeploy many of the troops to Afghanistan although military chiefs have warned this may not be sustainable in the long term.

The Prime Minister travelled to Baghdad yesterday to discuss the pull-out with Nouri al-Malaki, the Iraqi Prime Minister. He later travelled to visit British troops in Basra and made a rare visit to the port of Umm Qasr.

The negotiations were overshadowed by twin bomb blasts in the Iraqi capital which killed 18 people and wounded 53.

The car bomb and a second explosion killed police and civilians in the Nahdha neighbourhood of central Baghdad, near a traffic police station and a hospital.

During yesterday’s visit, Mr Brown travelled outside of the heavily-secured green zone in central Baghdad for the first time. He also toured the port of Umm Qasr with the Iraqi navy in the south of the country.

The Prime Minister believes this demonstrates the major developments that have been made in improving security in Iraq in recent months.

Mr Brown laid a reef at the memorial to British troops who have died in the conflict. He also spoke to the remaining troops and said that there “courage is legendary”.

The current UN resolution which gives British troops the legal right to be in Iraq expires at the end of the month. The British and Iraqi Governments are close to agreeing a new “status of forces” agreement which will allow UK troops to remain in Iraq after the end of the year.

The deal, which has been negotiated by Simon MacDonald, Mr Brown’s chief foreign policy adviser, will allow British troops to continue using force during their operations.

The Prime Minister also used the visit to raise the plight of five Britons who are still being held hostage in Iraq.

Mr Brown was photographed wearing protective glasses as he left a helicopter in Baghdad.

A few hundred troops are likely to be posted in Iraq after the withdrawal to help with training and other specialist tasks.

 

 

Is the UAW the Wrong Scapegoat for the Failed Bailout?

Hello, gentle blog reader,

Detroit’s big 3 automakers have been in the news a lot lately, with critics blaming the United Auto Workers for making American car manufacturing too expensive to be solvent. 

Baloney!  That’s just NOT the case.  Here’s a Brookings Institution article, which delves into what’s really ailing the auto industry (and it has little to do with organized labor):

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/1204_big_labor_burtless.aspx

Gary Burtless and Daniel J. Ikenson debate bailing out the Big Three. Today’s question: U.S. automakers say the high cost of labor here gives overseas companies an unfair advantage. How much of a problem is Big Labor for Detroit? How much of an advantage – if at all – do Honda, Toyota and others have over U.S. companies? Previously, Burtless and Ikenson discussed the automakers’ restructuring plans  and whether U.S. car manufacturers should be allowed to slip into bankruptcy.

Point : Gary BurtlessThe basic hourly wage received by a UAW worker in a Big Three plant is close to that received by a Toyota or Honda worker in a U.S. plant. The UAW-negotiated wage was roughly $28 an hour in 2007. For new workers, the hourly wage was lower; senior workers made more money. The major cost difference between UAW members and employees in foreign-nameplate factories in the U.S. comes in fringe benefits. The UAW has been one more of the more successful American unions in fighting for generous pensions and health benefits for its members.

It is hard to compare the cost of fringe benefits provided to active workers, because foreign-nameplate auto manufacturers in the U.S. do not report all their labor costs in a way that makes a comparison easy. We do know, however, that active workers in a Big Three plant are considerably older than their foreign-nameplate counterparts, meaning the cost of funding their pensions and health benefits are higher. Providing health benefits to a 55-year-old worker can cost as much as three times the money an employer spends on a 25-year-old, even if both workers are covered by an identical plan.

Because the Big Three have an older workforce, their employee benefit costs are higher than those of their foreign-nameplate competitors. This would be the case even if both foreign and domestic producers offered the same benefits packages. Historically, however, the UAW has negotiated better benefits for its workers.

Many critics of the auto giants and the UAW claim that the average hourly wage in Big Three plants is $70 or more. This is an absurd overestimate. It would be more accurate to say that the total labor costs paid by the Big Three are more than $70 per hour actually worked on an assembly line. A large percentage of the total labor cost, however, is paid to retired workers and their dependents, not to active workers. The benefits owed to retirees must be paid by the automakers, regardless of whether any cars are produced in their factories. The legacy costs of paying retirees are vastly more expensive for the Big Three than they are for their foreign-nameplate competitors, whose factories went on line only in the last 25 years.

The Big Three and UAW were no doubt foolish to negotiate contracts that saddled the companies with such enormous legacy costs. The companies and the union have tried to lighten the load by renegotiating health benefits and reducing the companies’ required contributions for retiree benefits. Nonetheless, the companies are on the hook to pay for much higher retiree costs than the ones faced by their foreign-nameplate competitors. Reducing these legacy costs must certainly be part of any rescue package to restore the Big Three to profitability.

Some critics of the UAW claim that the union boosts Big Three costs by reducing management flexibility and cutting worker productivity. In the short run this may be true, but both the automakers and union have adapted to the competitive environment by becoming much more flexible.

The more serious problem faced by the Big Three is the shrinking popularity of their most profitable vehicles. When big, gas-guzzling vehicles were in vogue, the Big Three made a lot of money. This encouraged workers and managers to form unrealistic expectations about the affordability of costly union contracts. Gas-guzzlers are no longer in vogue, and labor costs that were affordable in more prosperous times may kill the companies now.

The Big Three U.S. automakers face a cost disadvantage compared with some of their overseas and foreign-nameplate competitors that manufacture cars in the United States. Part of this disadvantage is because of the labor contracts they have negotiated with the United Auto Workers. By contrast, blue-collar workers employed in foreign-nameplate factories in the U.S. are only rarely covered by union contracts.

Madonna’s Divorce PR Heats Up–Lies, Retractions, and Silence

Hello gentle blog reader,

Hope you’re doing well. I am too and am enjoying the snow and winter in all of its chilly glory.   Well, it seems like Madonna’s PR person mispoke about the final divorce settlement, which is still being worked out between the warring Ritchies.  Guy’s camp says he did NOT receive nearly $90 million. 

Of course, no one is saying what Guy will receive, if anything, but I bet she’ll be paying him a fortune to “speak no evil” about her as long he lives. 

It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the kids–I bet some day, one of them will publish a tell-all book about Madonna, who won’t be able to stop the presses.

Bobbi 

Here’s the story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1096482/War-Of-The-Ritchies-intensifies-Guy-forces-Team-Madonna-admit-50m-divorce-pay-misleading.html

  

By Natalie Trombetta

During her marriage, Madonna reportedly permitted the family to only eat a macrobiotic diet and prohibited the children from watching TV.

‘He can’t wait. He’s so looking forward to having some quality time with his son and he will spoil him rotten. Not with expensive gifts but little treats like letting Rocco watch some TV and eat a few sweets.’

No matter how hard they try to keep it civil, the blows still keep on coming.

Just days after Madonna’s spokeswoman outlined the £50-£60million divorce settlement the singer’s ex-husband would receive, her camp have had to backtrack over ‘misleading and inaccurate’ claims.

In an attempt to counter initial speculation that he would walk away from the marriage without a penny, Madonna’s spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg earlier this week took the unusual step of speaking publicly about the settlement.

Business as usual: Madonna, who was forced to backtrack over claims Guy Ritchie would receive £50million, was spotted rehearsing in Brazil yesterday

Madonna was said to be furious over suggestions Ritchie refused to accept anything from her estimated £300million fortune and was only interested in maintaining access to his children.

Rosenberg claimed on Monday that Ritchie, 40, would actually receive ‘one of the largest payouts ever in a divorce settlement’ an estimated £50-£60 million.

The sum was said to be made up of £2.4million in cash and a large portfolio of property including homes in London, New York and Wiltshire.

It was also understood that Ritchie, who is currently directing a film about the Victorian detective Sherlock Holmes, would gain artwork worth up to £5million given to him by his wife.

However today his spokesperson released a stinging ‘joint’ statement on behalf of the former couple which left Madonna’s PR offensive in tatters.

The statement read: ‘We have tried to maintain a dignified silence regarding the details of our divorce for the last few months whilst accepting the obvious media interest.

The band plays on: Madonna put aside the divorce saga as she squeezed in some guitar practice

 

Fighting back: Guy Ritchie on the set of Sherlock Holmes earlier this week

‘A misleading and inaccurate statement, specifically in relation to the sums of money involved, was wrongly issued to AP this week.

‘The financial details of the settlement will remain private, save to say that both of us are happy with our agreement.

 

‘Our primary concern, like any co-parents, is the care and well being of our children.’

The residency arrangement for the couple’s children – Rocco, eight, and David, three – is yet to be finalised. The singer also has a daughter Lourdes, born in 1996, from her relationship with fitness trainer Carlos Leon.

Despite the embarrassing U-turn, it was business as usual for the 50-year-old singer who was spotted rehearsing in Brazil ahead of her concert Sao Paulo tomorrow night.

She is in the middle of her three-month Sticky & Sweet world tour, which has netted an estimated £186million.

It was reported earlier this week that Ritchie’s legal team renegotiated maintenance after discovering that Madonna’s tour had been the biggest-grossing by a solo artist ever.

The tour is scheduled to end on December 21.

Meanwhile, Ritchie, who moved out of the home the couple shared and into a studio flat above his office, also in Central London, is expected to spend Christmas with his sons, who have spent recent weeks on tour with the singer.

A source says: ‘Guy hasn’t seen the kids for weeks and he is desperate to be with them over the holidays. They have been travelling a lot and he just wants them home.