View Full Version : Iraq coalition withering as Britain pulls out
Brown seems to be wasting no time. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21210031/)
Iraq coalition withering as Britain pulls out
If plans stand, Americans will comprise 95 percent of alliance by mid-2008
Updated: 3:46 p.m. ET Oct 9, 2007
Britain’s decision to bring half of its 5,000 soldiers home from Iraq by
spring is the latest blow to the U.S.-led coalition. The alliance is
crumbling, and fast: Excluding Americans, the multinational force was once
50,000 strong — by mid-2008, it will be down to 7,000.
President Bush, facing opposition to the war from the Democrat-led Congress,
also is paring back. He says he is committed to gradually reducing the
American force from its current peak of 168,000 soldiers to just over
130,000 by next summer.
U.S. troops already are stretched thin trying to contain Sunni Arab and
Shiite Muslim extremists. But defense experts say the shrunken coalition
probably won’t make much of a difference because most of the non-U.S. forces
have largely stuck to non-combat roles.
“This is a U.S. and Iraqi coalition — nothing more and nothing less,” said
Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the
Pentagon and now an analyst with the private Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington.
“A British withdrawal and that of other countries really doesn’t matter very
much. They’re playing a very limited role,” he said Tuesday.
A crumbling coalition
What’s certain is this: The alliance has withered dramatically since its
peak in the months after the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
At its height, in the months after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the
multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries —
250,000 from the United States, about 40,000 from Britain and the rest
ranging from 2,000 Australians to 70 Albanians.
By January of this year, though, the combined non-U.S. contingent had
dwindled to just over 14,000. As of Tuesday, it stood at 20 nations and
roughly 11,400 soldiers.
It’s in for more unraveling: Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday that
Britain will halve its remaining force of 5,000 next spring, and another
official said there were no guarantees any British troops would remain in
Iraq beyond the end of 2008.
The latest defectors include Denmark, which withdrew a 460-strong contingent
from the southern Iraqi city of Basra in August and replaced it with a small
helicopter unit.
In a recent newspaper interview, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
conceded his country and other coalition members miscalculated when they
thought “that foreign troops would be welcomed with open arms like
liberators.” Seven Danes were killed in Iraq.
NDNdancer
10-11-2007, 07:27 PM
I've read that by next spring, there will only be 7,000 "Coalition of the Willing" troops left in Iraq. I suspect it might be less then that as others watch the Brits pull out.
Oh Kyi.......I too suspect it will be much less than that also......especially when Bush made his last speech, he said there were 36 countires at that time left and in actuality there was only 25.
BoogyMan
10-12-2007, 02:58 AM
Could it be that those troops are no longer needed in Iraq? I read just the other day that the Marines are petitioning to be moved from Iraq into Afghanistan to lead the way in that area.
The article was in the NYT. Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html)
Elrathin
10-12-2007, 03:02 AM
Not needed in Iraq? WTF did we do the surge for then? I love it when you guys flip flop on what's needed in Iraq.
BoogyMan
10-12-2007, 03:05 AM
Not needed in Iraq? WTF did we do the surge for then? I love it when you guys flip flop on what's needed in Iraq.
The surge was done in order to get to this point El. How is claiming the possibility of progress over time a flip flop?
Even Petraeus broached the idea of a gradual drawdown of forces with progress.
Elrathin
10-12-2007, 03:11 AM
How is claiming the possibility of progress over time a flip flop?
It wasn't two weeks ago they were saying it might be a year, now two weeks later there's progress to withdraw marines? Sorry don't buy that one.
BoogyMan
10-12-2007, 03:17 AM
How is claiming the possibility of progress over time a flip flop?
It wasn't two weeks ago they were saying it might be a year, now two weeks later there's progress to withdraw marines? Sorry don't buy that one.
Your argument doesn't make sense to me El. What is the context and commentary you are quoting so that I can see where you are coming from here? Got a link that I can look at to frame your commentary properly?
The marines are not our only forces in Iraq, even if all 25,000 marines in Iraq were moved to Afghanistan, there would still be 135,000 American troops on the ground.
Boogy.........your link is subscription only......so I don't know who the source was.......but from the horse's mouth (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21245930/). Now don't get me wrong........I'd love to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Gates: 'No plan' to pull Marines from Iraq
Defense chief downplays report of possible troop shift to Afghanistan
NBC video
Updated: 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday played down a
newspaper report that the Marine Corps was pressing to remove its forces
from Iraq and switch to a leading role in Afghanistan.
"I have heard that they were beginning to think about that and that's all
that I've heard. I've seen no plan, no one's come to me with any proposals
about it," Gates told reporters in London after meeting his British
counterpart, Des Browne.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the Marines' suggestion was
raised in a session last week convened by Gates for the U.S. military's
Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. It comes at a
time when Washington's key ally in Iraq, Britain, is drawing down its
presence there.
BoogyMan
10-12-2007, 04:09 AM
I goobered up the URL to the story. Try this one. Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
I don't know that it is going to happen, but it presents an interesting view. This article presents it much in the same light as the MSNBC article you posted.
lawless168
10-12-2007, 03:08 PM
man you guys want us to loose so badly in Iraq you jump at anything so blindly, its funny
*edit* its really sad, not funny
man you guys want us to loose so badly in Iraq you jump at anything so blindly, its funny
*edit* its really sad, not funny
Actually lawless.......it's the total opposite. Bush has screwed up so bad, that the sooner this is taken out of his hands, the better......now do you have anything to say about the British pulling out troops? The discussion was already sidetracked by the Marines being sent back to Afghanistan, which we find out now is no more than a rumor.
Scorpion
10-13-2007, 12:48 AM
To put this back on topic, I feel that characterizing the coalition as "withering" because the UK is pulling out 2100 troops is a gross overstatement.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
In the context of total non-US coaltion forces, the 2100 UK troops are a slight fraction, not to mention the handover of security duties to trained Iraqi forces coming on line.
BoogyMan
10-13-2007, 12:55 AM
man you guys want us to loose so badly in Iraq you jump at anything so blindly, its funny
*edit* its really sad, not funny
Actually lawless.......it's the total opposite. Bush has screwed up so bad, that the sooner this is taken out of his hands, the better......now do you have anything to say about the British pulling out troops? The discussion was already sidetracked by the Marines being sent back to Afghanistan, which we find out now is no more than a rumor.
Lily, the introduction of the marines possible move to Afghanistan was neither off topic, nor was it presented as anything other than a possibility, as a matter of fact I presented it being petitioned by the marines as did the article I referenced. Such a move would bolster the point I was floating about a possible motive for the removal of the british forces.
To put this back on topic, I feel that characterizing the coalition as "withering" because the UK is pulling out 2100 troops is a gross overstatement.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
In the context of total non-US coaltion forces, the 2100 UK troops are a slight fraction, not to mention the handover of security duties to trained Iraqi forces coming on line.
Sorry Scorpion.........but if you think that, you didn't read your own link.[hr]
Lily, the introduction of the marines possible move to Afghanistan was neither off topic, nor was it presented as anything other than a possibility, as a matter of fact I presented it being petitioned by the marines as did the article I referenced. Such a move would bolster the point I was floating about a possible motive for the removal of the british forces.
Really Boogy........I wouldn't know as both of your links were subsription only and I couldn't read it. Either way as was already pointed out......it was nothing more than a rumor.
Scorpion
10-13-2007, 02:44 AM
Hi Lily:
Of course I read my link. The loss of 2100 UK troops will not nearly affect the coalition.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. 2,100 out of 14,200 non combat really isn't going to make that much of a difference........we could always do another surge.
BoogyMan
10-13-2007, 02:55 AM
Really Boogy........I wouldn't know as both of your links were subsription only and I couldn't read it. Either way as was already pointed out......it was nothing more than a rumor.
Neither link comes up as a subscription only link here, and I don't have a subscription to the New York Times. Is anyone else having trouble reading either of those links? They work from the four machines I have in my home.
It is not just a rumor, it is what the Marines want, but is not policy and goes directly to possible progress which could also be seen as a reason for the coming draw-down of British forces.
Neither link comes up as a subscription only link here, and I don't have a subscription to the New York Times. Is anyone else having trouble reading either of those links?
No......I'm just making it up to piss you off.:rolleyes:
Either way.......I'm not going to play battle of the links again.
It is not just a rumor, it is what the Marines want, but is not policy and goes directly to possible progress which could also be seen as a reason for the coming draw-down of British forces.
Gates said he hasn't heard anything about it........as for possible progress....I think you and El already covered that.
BoogyMan
10-13-2007, 03:59 AM
Neither link comes up as a subscription only link here, and I don't have a subscription to the New York Times. Is anyone else having trouble reading either of those links?
No......I'm just making it up to piss you off.:rolleyes:
Either way.......I'm not going to play battle of the links again.
Lily, if your "tactics" here angered me I would be much the lesser person. It truly isn't possible for "tactics" like this to anger me.
It is not just a rumor, it is what the Marines want, but is not policy and goes directly to possible progress which could also be seen as a reason for the coming draw-down of British forces.
Gates said he hasn't heard anything about it........as for possible progress....I think you and El already covered that.
We sure did lily, we sure did. :clapper:
Labrocca
10-13-2007, 04:00 AM
I am not sure if 5000 british troops mean that much here. While I do admit that it looks bad and I am sure the US would NOT want these forces withdrawn but that's not our decision now is it.
The coalition has always been thin anyways and has been criticized since day one. This news changes very little.
Patreaus nor Bush has control over UK troops.
Scorpion
10-13-2007, 04:02 AM
I am not sure if 5000 british troops mean that much here. While I do admit that it looks bad and I am sure the US would NOT want these forces withdrawn but that's not our decision now is it.
The coalition has always been thin anyways and has been criticized since day one. This news changes very little.
Patreaus nor Bush has control over UK troops.
Only 2100 of the 5000 UK troops are withdrawing. The remaining forces will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lily, if your "tactics" here angered me I would be much the lesser person. It truly isn't possible for "tactics" like this to anger me.
Huh:question:
[
tony mitra
10-13-2007, 06:24 AM
I don't know if it could be considered a real coalition. To cap it off, almost every leader that joined up with the US on the invasion of Iraq has ended up ruining their political careers because of that "coalition".
Cheers
:)
preservanation
10-13-2007, 01:14 PM
As troops pull out...the libs lose their minds.
Make up your feeble ones.
moses2792796
10-13-2007, 05:07 PM
You know my Dad said something to me the other day that might just solve all our problems...
"We should just put a fucking wall up around them and wait for the bloody towelheads to kill eachother"
Would save America alot of time and effort don't you think?
tony mitra
10-13-2007, 06:47 PM
I'd say your dad is not being realistic, because those towelheads are sitting on resources that your dad would like to have a share of. Therein lies the circularity in this logic. :unreal:
Cheers and have a good weekend.
:)
NDNdancer
10-13-2007, 07:41 PM
The broader implications of less "boots on the ground" isn't the numbers of troops being pulled out. It's the growing unpopularity in the countries of our allies of the purpose behind this war. It's the growing unpopularity of the US. It's the growing belief in the futility of this occupation. It's the broader feelings that this war is a civil war and has gone beyond an occupation.
It is our allies saying that they believe the US is wrong and they will no longer support it by putting their men and women in harms way. They will no longer condone our actions with the blood of their people.
That's a powerful message.
AnnEsthesia
10-13-2007, 07:46 PM
Yet no one in the administration will care.
Scorpion
10-13-2007, 09:26 PM
You know my Dad said something to me the other day that might just solve all our problems...
"We should just put a fucking wall up around them and wait for the bloody towelheads to kill eachother"
Would save America alot of time and effort don't you think?
Exactly what is a "towelhead?" Anything like a "gook?" Once upon a time back in '68 when I was young, stupid and serving with the Air Cav in Vietnam I called the indigenous population "gooks." Big mistake. I've sinced returned to Vietnam several times and discovered that the Vietnamese are a gentle, kind people.
With all due respect to your father, I hope that you corrected him.
Want to know what would save the US alot of time and effort, not to mention lives? Learn to get along with the rest of the world and accept ideologic differences.
jafar00
10-14-2007, 09:09 AM
You know my Dad said something to me the other day that might just solve all our problems...
"We should just put a fucking wall up around them and wait for the bloody towelheads to kill eachother"
Would save America alot of time and effort don't you think?
They have already tried the wall thing in Baghdad and it only resulted in the locals turning against the US forces and protests to tear the walls down. You'd think they would learn their lesson from the Israeli tactic of walling in. It just doesn't work.
moses2792796
10-14-2007, 10:58 AM
You know my Dad said something to me the other day that might just solve all our problems...
"We should just put a fucking wall up around them and wait for the bloody towelheads to kill eachother"
Would save America alot of time and effort don't you think?
Exactly what is a "towelhead?" Anything like a "gook?" Once upon a time back in '68 when I was young, stupid and serving with the Air Cav in Vietnam I called the indigenous population "gooks." Big mistake. I've sinced returned to Vietnam several times and discovered that the Vietnamese are a gentle, kind people.
With all due respect to your father, I hope that you corrected him.
Want to know what would save the US alot of time and effort, not to mention lives? Learn to get along with the rest of the world and accept ideologic differences.
:thumbsup:
"We are gonna free the shit outta you!" America
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.