The coalition of the (not-so-)willing (anymore)

Britain's defence secretary, John Reid, has announced that British forces will slowly be withdrawn from Iraq over the next 12 months. Britain's military presence in Iraq is quite overstated -- there are only 8,500 troops there, mostly in the more peaceful south -- but Britain has, of course, been America's chief partner in the Iraq War (and, really, Bush's chief source of legitimacy for what was, rightly or wrongly, an act of American unilateralism backed up by a measly coalition of small and in some cases tiny allies (nothing against Poland, but you know there's something wrong when it's one of your most important military supporters).

But what will a British withdrawal mean for the U.S.? What will it mean for the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the occupation? Will the U.S. pull out sooner rather than later? Or will the U.S. at least scale back its military presence significantly? If so, what will happen to Iraq? Are Iraqi forces ready to take over the burdensome duties of securing peace and dealing with the insurgents? Will a decreased U.S. presence lead to chaos, anarchy, full-out civil war? Will Iran become an even bigger player in Iraq's domestic politics? Will the violence in Iraq spill out into its neighbours? Will Iraq become more or less of a training ground for international terrorism?

Ah, so much to think about. It's likely a no-win situation, at least in the short-term, but I do think the U.S. needs to stay there as long as is necessary to get the job done. It's Powell's old Pottery Barn rule:

Iraq's broken. Fix it.