Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Foreign briefing

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 July 2008
WHEN does a surge stop being a surge? Yesterday, according to the United States military, the extra deployment of 30,000 US troops ordered into Iraq by George Bush in January 2007 to deal with rampaging violence, officially ended.
A quick glance at the maths however, reveals that all is not as it seems. There were about 130,000 US soldiers in Iraq when the surge was ordered. This rose to 170,000 as an additional five combat brigades were deployed, making a total of 20 across t
he country.

The last soldiers from the surge brigades departed this weekend – leaving US troop levels at 147,000, some 17,000 more than when the surge started.

Of this number, about half are combat troops, with the rest in support roles. By way of comparison, total UK troop deployment in Iraq is 4,100.

While one of the reasons given for this disparity is that an airborne brigade has departed, with a larger infantry brigade rostered in, that is not the whole picture. The fact remains that numbers are still higher than at the start of 2007.

Adding to the domestic pressure on the Bush administration is the fact that US military tours of duty are 15 months long, extended from 12 in April 2007. Again, by comparison, British tours are six months in duration.

It is now being reported in the American media that the White House is set to order thousands more troops home by the end of this year.

One major factor is that violence in Afghanistan is rising, and the US needs to send soldiers there to fill in the gaps left by its reluctant Nato allies.

Politically, the Iraqi government is also asserting its wish for a speed-up in withdrawals. On Monday, the chief spokesman for prime minister Nouri al-Maliki said the government hopes the US withdraws its troops by 2010.

More cuts seem possible next year, but the scale and timing will depend on who replaces Mr Bush.

Barack Obama says he wants all American troops outs within 16 months of him taking office.

John McCain refuses to set any timeline for withdrawals.

Barring any catastrophic return to the violence of 2007, the final act is now being played out in large-scale US military involvement in Iraq.

Not an if now, but a when.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 July 2008 10:01 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

mike - across the pond,

23/07/2008 01:52:48
"Barack Obama says he wants all American troops outs within 16 months of him taking office."

at best this is a dangerous "line in the sand"... at worst foolhardy absolutism by a man clearly not ready for the yoke of world leadership...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"John McCain refuses to set any timeline for withdrawals."

because he knows these kinds of situations are fluid, and can change rather quickly... we've expended nearly 5,000 lives for what the Iraqis have so far, if we pull out prematurely and the situation reverts to sectarian violence (as it will if the Iraqis are not ready to shoulder their own burden), those 5,000 lives will be lost for nothing and we will be right back in there, starting over... or worse sitting on the sidelines like the rest of nato, wringing our hands saying "gee, you guys should play nice now"...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Adding to the domestic pressure on the Bush administration is the fact that US military tours of duty are 15 months long, extended from 12 in April 2007. Again, by comparison, British tours are six months in duration"

DO YOUR HOMEWORK SCOTSMAN.... US tours were extended to provide support to the surge... US tours are scheduled to drop back to 12 months...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"One major factor is that violence in Afghanistan is rising, and the US needs to send soldiers there to fill in the gaps left by its reluctant Nato allies."

not sure how to put this...
NATO... LIVE UP TO YOUR COMMITMENTS... stop being children here... (not really talking to UK readers there, however you might want to support extending your tours towards the 1 year variety... being typical casualty rates peak in the 2nd-4th months of a tour... then taper off... you'll never hear me say anything against lower coalition casualty rates)
2

Siroos,

UK 23/07/2008 11:35:10
#-1, Mike. I am with you on this. Obama is a fake in my opinion. He will be a bad choice. Maybe worse than Carter.
He is an appeaser.
3

Number 6,

Germany 23/07/2008 11:49:17
What matters here is what the Iraq's want , not you.
Have you forgoten this is a free country we are talking about , and the goverment has made it plain , it wants to see a time-table for withdrawl.

They agree with Obamas plan. Can you not see that's all that matters ? not your permanent bases , not your oil grab, nor your biggest embassy in the world.
None of that matters. They want you out and out you must go.

Bush is now gibbering about pulling out troops . So much for the olsd "Staying the course". It's not your decision,and what you should be concentrating on is how to withdraw with grace , and not like your despperate scramble from Vietnam.

The Brits have already declared they will be out by the end of 2009, believe me, you won't be far behind.

See you in Afgahnistan.
4

American,

23/07/2008 21:52:50
#3-#6-Any word on when we're going to start grabbing this oil already??
5

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 24/07/2008 04:40:19
American...I'm still waiting!! And so is the military.
6

mike - across the pond,

number 6 24/07/2008 15:58:41
"what the Iraqis want..."

you say that so eloquently... like that isnt what we are in there doing...

now re-read what I said... understand that "being back in there"... would be to protect the Kurds... or separate the Shiites and Sunis... or to push Iran out of there... Or going after AlQueda.... essentially "what the Iraqis want"... not blindly supporting one isolated faction...

but if you really want to help humanity you probably should apply some local pressure to live up to your commitments in Afghanistan.... or maybe shoulder some of the burden in parts of Africa... or Indonesia...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.