LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteNow the question is will this draw down in troops simply lead to more troops being sent to Afghanistan?
Iraq withdrawal 'begins in March'
British forces should begin pulling out of Iraq by next March, a senior defence source has revealed to the BBC.
The UK has been negotiating the legal basis on which its forces can stay in the Gulf state when its UN mandate expires at the end of the year.
It still has 4,100 troops in Basra but defence chiefs plan a withdrawal over the next year if Iraqi elections in January pass off peacefully.
A withdrawal could allow resources to be diverted to Afghanistan.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has indicated that almost all British troops should leave Iraq by the middle of next year, with a few hundred possibly remaining to train Iraqi security forces.
Previously it had been suggested that troops could start leaving in January.
However, the BBC has learned that the process is likely to begin in March - six years after the US-led invasion.
'Significant progress'
A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "Significant progress has been made in Basra, a city which has now been transformed thanks to Iraqi, coalition and British efforts.
"As such, we are now expecting to see a fundamental change of mission in early 2009."
The majority of the British troops are confined to Basra air base.
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the withdrawal "should allow a renewed focus on the multi-national mission in Afghanistan, which is facing a stalemate".
She said it would free up helicopters, intelligence assets and eventually troops for the battle against the Taleban.
The US is planning to boost the strength of its force in Afghanistan in the new year and is hoping its Nato allies follow suit.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament may have to vote on any deal to allow British troops to remain in the country beyond the end of the year. It recently agreed a similar deal which allows American forces to remain until 2011.
Now the question is will this draw down in troops simply lead to more troops being sent to Afghanistan?
Which would be a good thing, in my opinion. Iraq, though far from perfect, is becoming increasingly stabilized and it's Afghanistan that's in need of a surge.Originally Posted by VarSity
Yes .
TANKIE.
Indeed but moving everyone from Iraq to Afghanistan isn’t going to improve the problems with regards to operation overstretch.
i wonder how badly british troops are overstretched as compared to american troops-- what's the average length of a rotation for the brits?
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
Some infantry are doing a 6 month tour (shorter than the yanks I know) then having about three month in the UK before starting training and working up for another tour (say 9 months) which usually starts a year or so after they have left.
Yes, but I feel it will be more regulated due to the fact Iraq will be out of the equation.To try and ease this burden somewhat.
Absolutely agree.
Equally I would say Sir, if it was broken down in relation to size,availability and area's of operaton's.
For the majority of teeth arms its ongoing now, operations, return R&R then ongoing training for next deployment, all of the BG's that train now at BATUS are at least IMO 90 to 95% "seasoned" soldiers.
An interesting point was mentioned by a Senior officer at BATUS last year, inso much as we now have soldiers who have been in the military 5 years or less, and they have seen more actual combat than the average soldier who served through the whole of WW2, and I am sure this is the case within the US forces also.
FEAR NAUGHT
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
The Generals are against this, at least straight away. They want the forces to have time to recuperate from being overstretched, the politicians will ultimately send more to Afghanistan though.
Nulli Secundus
People always talk of dying for their country, and never of making the other bastard die for his
What does Tellic currently entail by battle-groups out at the airport? Supporting CS/CSS elements?
How many battle-groups are down-range in Helmand now and their associated CS/CSS supporting units?
How has organization for combat of these groups differed between one another in Afghanistan, i.e., have they replaced one another with exact or approximate capabilities or has there been capabilities gaps evident between one to the other?
Hope those questions make sense.
"This aggression will not stand, man!"
Jeff Lebowski
Personally i am happy about the News, in my opinion British troops had no reason to be in Iraq, it wasnt our fight, im happy to see them come home and ease the burfen,they did a top-notch job given the situation in Iraq, and hopfully the people of southern Iraq can sleep better.
As for troops being sent to Afganistan, its almosta given since 2,000 have been pledged to go already, whichj will bring the number of British troops to around 10,000 by far the second largest contrbution to the mission.
I do also feel other nations need to do more, especially Germany, France sent troops over recently, Canada is doing more then its fair share , other Europeancountries doneed to step up to the plate, particually the ones in the north.
i absolutely agree with you there, other NATO countries have troops there but leave the actual fighting to british US and canadians.
incoming fire has the right of way
The Germans are preparing to take over Khandahar in 2011.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: