Iraq: More troops considered

[bemildred]

London - Britain may send up to 1 300 extra troops to Iraq to help stabilise the country before scheduled elections in January, The Times newspaper reported in its Thursday edition.

The Times report comes as Britain considers a United States request to temporarily redeploy 650 troops from southern Iraq to the US-controlled sector in central Iraq in a bid to improve security in the run-up to the elections.

"There may be a request to surge additional forces into Iraq in the run-up to the elections - that has been discussed," Lieutenant General John McColl, Britain's senior general in Iraq, told the Times.

"But it is no more than prudent planning at this stage," the general was quoted as saying before flying back to Britain on Wednesday. McColl had just served for six months as second-in-command of the US-led multinational force.


News24

[goodboy]

1. 1300?? I think we have some states here in the US with more

contributions in the way of troop levels than most of the "coalition of the killing"

[sugus]

2. Hilliburton needs you. Die for money and for oil to enrich them.

http://www.webrecruiter.com/pls/kbr/maine.d?s=E6F594A616757357E0340800209B083C

[gratuitous]

3. That's all it would take? 1,300 troops?

What's the problem, then? Another 1,300 troops and Iraq would be stabilized? Hell, we probably have 1,300 lollygagging around at Walter Reed Hospital!

I sometimes wonder if these dopes actually believe the tripe they're peddling. Then I fear that they do.

[daleo]

4. But 1300 U.K. troops implies an extra 20,000 U.S. troops

At the current 15 to 1 ratio, adding 1300 U.K. troops will give political cover to add 20,000 U.S. troops. It will be called keeping pace with the rest of the alliance.