Posted on 10/08/2007 10:44:46 AM PDT by DJ Elliott
The shifting emphasis and resources to secure Basrah was confirmed with the release of the US Department of Defense’s Quarterly Report to Congress on September 18. According to that report, the 12th IA Division Headquarters with headquarters, military police, and signals companies was to assume control of a part of the area of 4th IA Division (Salahadin) and some subordinate brigades as ordered in 2006, but instead those headquarters elements are forming the 14th IA Division Headquarters (Basrah). This is the first confirmed diversion of significant resources to Basrah. The 12th IA Division will not be generated until 2008. Additionally, activity in the newly forming 11th IA Division (East Baghdad) has been confined to the redesignation of the 2-6 IA Brigade to the 1-11 IA Brigade. The 11th IA Division was due to stand up this fall. This indicates some of the assets meant for the 11th IA Division have also been diverted.
On September 9, it was reported that the 3-9 IA Brigade was being deployed to Basrah from Baghdad with US assistance. "The plan is to link up with another IA wheeled division outside of Basra and use the armor assets of 3/9th IA as a show of force." This also indicates that the newly forming 14th IA Division is to stand up as fully motorized division. Since then a mechanized battalion of 3-9 IA Brigade has been confirmed as deployed to Basrah.
It is also reported that the 3-8 IA Brigade (Wasit) is swapping areas with 1-10 IA Brigade (Basrah). The 3-8 IA Brigade is one of only three IA brigades rated category one. This indicates that the 1-10 IA Brigade is not fully trusted and that the Ministry of Defense (MoD) has decided to go with an entirely new force for Basrah to break the militia...
(Excerpt) Read more at longwarjournal.org ...
UK Iraq troops to be cut to 2,500 bbc news ^ | 8 Oct 07 | bbc news Posted on 10/08/2007 8:37:03 AM PDT by Rikstir
British troop numbers in Iraq will be reduced to 2,500 from next spring, Gordon Brown has told MPs.
It follows the prime minister's announcement in Iraq last week that UK forces would reduce their numbers from 5,500 to 4,500 by Christmas.
Mr Brown also told MPs that Iraqi interpreters who worked for UK forces for more than 12 months would be able to apply for aid to settle in Britain.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908182/posts
This is not Churchill's Britain, now is it?
Not at all.
This started getting serious in early summer.
In May/Jun the 14th was scheduled to stand up next summer.
Now they are looking at fully operational by the time they originaly were scheduled to start forming:
“...the Iraqi Army 14th Division - with around 11,000 men - are in the process of joining them and have already taken on responsibility for Basra City, bringing security forces in the south to almost 30,000 now and over 35,000 by June next year.” http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/PmUkTroopsInSIraqDownTo2500FromNextSpring
UK is bailing out ahead of schedule...
Not that the UK is really ‘bailing out’ at all. And I hope that if we were, we wouldn’t have a schedule.
Personally glad that the Iraqi Army is moving down South. It means less of our guys and girls need to be there. The only reason to stay beyond a useful date is for personal reasons, be they monetary or to engender national pride. For the British people its about getting the job done, and the best satisfaction you can have is the knowledge that you did it with courage and professionalism.
While far from perfect, Basra and its surroundings are on the whole, stable. As you no doubt will know, 90% of the violence in the city was directed towards the British. So it stands to reason that a reduced British presence (reduced, not zero) could see a 90% reduction in acts of violence against Coalition forces.
For me, I’m proud that our forces have stood for so long, and can now withdraw half of them for redeployment elsewhere. Namely, that forgotten war in America; Afghanistan.
There is a schedule. The schedule for standing up the three new IA Divisions under the PM’s expansion initiative.
- 11th Div (East Baghdad) was to stand up this fall. Only one Bde has so far. The rest is now postponed to next year.
- 12th Div (Salahadin) was to stand up early-2008. Those assets have now been redeployed to Basrah.
- 14th Div (Basrah) was to stand up late-spring/early-summer 2008. Now they have already formed HQ (xfered 12th), and have three operational brigades diverted from hot zones.
Diversions of IA and ISOF assets from the four provinces that constitute 78 percent of the violence in Iraq to a province that is a militia/criminal problem vice an insergent problem.
That is a change in schedule. The reduction of UK assets/operations and the stand up of 14th IA Div is 6-12 months ahead of the schedule that existed in May and the 11th (East Baghdad)/12th (Salahadin) is delayed accordingly.
I am still trying to identify the origin of the other two IA brigades being diverted to Basrah. Considering the current disposition of IA forces, they will either be green/new-formed brigades or further diversions from “hot” zones...
there is a division already in station around basra Basra. Trained by the brits, its about 10,000 strong and has been conducting operations without UK support for some time now.
Check the UK MoD website and Iraq Operations.
With up to 20,000 iraqi troops coming down, do we really need to be one station with thousands of troops on the ground? I reckon we need to keep some air assets at the airport and the necessary force protection. Some logistics too, and another battalion to patrol the Iranian border. I frankly dont think there is a useful role for us in Basra anymore.
Funnily enough, Churchill called for UK troop withdrawals from Iraq in the first half of the twentieth century as he did not see the worth of the operation. In any case, as Rikstir has noted, British forces are still in Iraq. In eight months we may be down to 2500 troops there.UK forces will probably still be in Iraq until the end of 2008 at leasr.
As for giving Iraqi interpreters asylum: your own country has been doing that for years.
Is there a great disparity in numbers between the Iraqi forces trained in the South by the Brits and those that have been swapped for them from elsewhere in the country to prevent tribal loyalties getting in the way?
I.E: What is the net drain of resources into Basra when the forces moving out of the South are taken into account?
I am sure it wasn't worth the trouble back then. That was then, this is now. After 9/11 the paradigm changed for most people.
And the UK was the only country to properly stand with you in Iraq (which it is still doing). In eight months time, based all the time on conditions on the ground, British troop levels in Iraq MAY be down to 2500. That wil still make Britain the second largest coalition partner in country nearly a full year from now (despite Britain leading Coalition efforts in the South of Afghanistan as well). Our military has been running at full capacity for years to help our US friends and withdrawals from Iraq will more than likely be sent almost straight away to Afghanistan (as they have been in the past).
Also, the situation in Basra seems to suggest that conditional withdrawals at the moment are justified. Basra city has a crime rate 50% that of Washington DC. It has none to little of the sectarian problems blighting the rest of Iraq. Two isloated car bombs two weeks ago killed eight people in the city. These were the only deaths of this kind in over a month. British forces stood-to to re-enter the ciy, but were told by General Mohan (the Iraqi commander there) that his men would be perfectly sufficient to reassure the population. This is real progress. Do you think that the US would stay in Baghdad if it were this stable? Of course Basra isn’t perfect. That is why British forces will still be there for a long time to come. But the Iraqis are stepping up to their responsibilities well so far.
Correction: Just to clarify, Britain will be the second largest Coalition force in Iraq after the US even when its force numbers reach 2500 in 8 months.
And, even if it were flagging, it is not my intent to suggest that the US is not extremely appreciative of the sacrifices Great Britain has made in the WOT and countless other wars we have fought together. It just seemed that Iraq-fatigue was the leading cause of Blair's demise. Please correct my impression, if you could be so kind.
Thanks for the reply.
The British people did not vote for Gordon Brown. They re-elected Tony Blair to serve a full third term. However, Gordon Brown essentially booted Blair out with the threat of it getting ugly (there was nearly a party rebellion last summer)half way through this term. Currently, opinion polls in the UK are flucuating wildly. Brown was initially popular as he seemed more straight than Blair (domestically Blair was seen to spin facts and be more about image than substance). Brown reacted with a stiff upper lip to the large scale floods, attempted terror attacks and foot and mouse disease outbreak that seemed to herald his arrival (a bit like the apocalypse!). However, he has since seemed weak (backing out of calling an election this autumn to give him a mandate). The Tories are gaining ground and in some polls are ahead.
Brown is not like Blair at all in style. However, you may remember widespread predictions that he would pull all Brit troops out of Iraq quickly upon gaining power. Instead he has seemed to follow the Blair model of gradual withdrawal. As I have said, Britain will, eight months from now, still have 2500 troops in Iraq. Remember, this is the equivalent party to your Democrats increasing UK combat troops in bloody Southern Afghanistan and keeping a substantial presence in Iraq.
Iraq certainly caused much damage to Blair’s political legacy (not least within his left- wing party). However, I do not see this as being much different from the controversy within the US in the same vein over the war (just look at the anti-war democratic success at gaining Congress etc). Just as a comparison: If the Democrats had been in power in the WOT do you think US troops would still be Iraq now?
To be honest, once the war in Iraq (the initial controversial invasion) had been won, the conflict has not been too politically controversial in the UK (relatively speaking, of course). Both Labour and the Tories support staying in Iraq until the job is done. Even Britain’s third party (the weak, left of centre Liberal Democrats), while calling for withdrawal from that country, fully support the Afghan campaign. The Iraq issue has passed as a vote winner really. The Lib Dems are suffering for seeming to focus endlessly on this issue.
In my understanding, the British army/military is at full stretch at present. They have committments to the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan to just name a few. Soldiers, having served several tours in Iraq, are now being shifted to the Afghan effort. So far, hopefully, the Basra handover seems to be allowing this transition. In no way can Britain be seen to be scaling back its combat comittments in the War on Terror in this regard.
I am fully aware, and appreciative, that the vast majority of decent Freepers, like yourself, acknowledge British sacrifices over the last few years. Unfortunately the anti-British loons seems to circling like vultures these days! :-)
No.
UK sector includes four provinces and had only one Division spread over those areas. Since three of those provinces are PIC, those IA forces in them are not available for Basrah...
The 10th Division had a brigade in Basrah (1-10) and new formed 5-10 Bde (May07) which is becoming part of 14th Div.
The 1-10 Bde is being transfered to Wasit to break its militia/criminal ties.
3-10 is in DhiQar.
2-10 is in Muthanna.
4-10 is in Maysan.
The 14th Division is forming to take over in Basrah and 10th Div assets that were there are being shifted out to cut the criminal/militia ties...
Straight numbers of personnel are within 5%. Basrah provided 30,000 personnel to IA but, it is a net lose from the serious combat zones.
The assets going to Basrah do not come from Basrah and are among the best trained, experienced and equipped in IA.
- Only three IA Bdes are rated C1. One of them (3-8/Wasit) is being swapped for the corrupted 1-10/Basrah.
- IA only has three mech/armor Bdes. The 3-9 Tank Bde is being sent from Baghdad to Basrah.
- The IA is only about 30% motorized and the 14th/Basrah is to be entirely mech/motorized.
- The ISOF is only three Bns and one is sent to Basrah, vice contributing to the fight in the north...
The loss is in the quality in forces. Green recruits were sent from Basrah. Experienced forces are going to Basrah...
I always marvel at the prescience shown by media peeps who are just shooting into the dark. They are, of course, pandering to the public who shovel the stories in and regurgitate only what suits their own arguments.
If in a years time our troops are no longer on Iraqi soil then the foresight of the Express will be shown to be correct. Until then, its all speculation.
posts such as yours are making a difference mate. nice one.
Thanks for setting me straight. Our histories and our futures are inextricably linked.
The thing to look at is that the Government of Iraq and MNF-I think the UK is pulling out.
They would not be accelerating the stand-up of Basrah’s 14th IA Division to the defficit of Baghdad and the fight in the north by shifting those assets to Basrah this far ahead of schedule otherwise.
And they are in a better position to judge than reporters and the rest of us in the peanuts gallery...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.