considering that our political leaders are now hinting at a decade long military commitment in iraq, i hope someone has planned for how to handle the situation if this actually happens.
britain's contingent is much smaller than the u.s', but it's the biggest non-american force in the coalition. and it occupies a large area of the south, including basra, iraq's second largest city. considering how badly the u.s. is at maintaining order in the rest of the country and how stretched thin u.s. forces are already, i don't know what will happen to the south if britain does pull out next year.
it seems like both the pullout-now crowd and the stay-the-course crowd can agree that a british withdrawal while american forces are still there would be bad. the pullout-now people claim that the occupying forces provoke the insurgency. but an even more thinly stretched occupation forces means just as much provocation with less ability to deal with it. meanwhile, the stay-the-course people believe that the occupying forces keep order, so less occupying forces mean less order. so an occupying army with fewer troops is the worst of both worlds--giving us all of the provocation that the pullout-nowers warn about, with less of the order the stay-the-coursers say is so critical.
on the other hand, the more burden that falls squarely on american shoulders, the more chance there is that the u.s. will actually pull out. so in the long run, i guess this could speed up the chances of a pullout. actually, i think it's inevitable that the u.s. will pullout from iraq. there won't be a permanent presence like there is in germany or japan. i don't think it's sustainable over the long term. the only issue is how long it takes for the u.s. to wake up and do it, and how many people have to lose their lives while we wait.
