In Iraq, the once willing are becoming less willing

How willing is the once "coalition of the willing" in Iraq? A close look at the number of soldiers in Iraq and the sobering news that Great Britain will cut its force by half shows that a willingness to stay the course is deteriorating.

New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last week that the 5,000 troops now in Iraq would be reduced to 2,500 soon and he made no promises of keeping any British soldiers in Iraq past next spring.

At the height of the invasion in 2003, the British had as many as 45,000 troops in Iraq. It was by far the most troops of any U.S. ally. President George W. Bush's relationship with then-Prime Minister Tony Blair was solid.

Blair, however, faced growing criticism at home. That, combined with a serious threat from Muslim extremists within Great Britain, led to the political downfall of Blair.

Brown, well aware of his country's growing disillusionment with the Iraq war, made the decision to withdraw British troops. That, no doubt, is a popular decision in England, but it deals the worst of a steady stream of blows to the coalition.

When the invasion began, about 34 countries were part of the coalition. The United States committed 250,000 troops to the invasion. The Bush administration, with assurances from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, with encouragement from Bush aides such as Paul

More than four years later -- longer than World War II -- the United States is slugging its way around Baghdad and the rest of the country and its military partnership is falling apart.

Brown says that British troops will remain in Iraq as needed but only as a unit to train Iraqi security forces. The British have been the main force in the Shiite-dominated Basra region in the southern part of Iraq.

Shortly after the invasion, that region became fairly peaceful. The Shiite population and religious leaders were elated that the tyrannical Sunni Saddam Hussein had been removed.

Over time, however, Shiite militias began a struggle for political power. In short order, the region became a hotbed of Shiite on Shiite violence.

Bush and Brown tried to put the best face on the British troop withdrawal announcement. They said that the recent "surge" had helped calm violence in the Basra region and that a strong British military force was no longer needed. But the Shiite power struggle there belies that fact.

Although the Pentagon reports that the coalition is mostly intact, it doesn't take much research to see that the United States has been and is still shouldering most of the burden.

The coalition has continued to dwindle in post-invasion Iraq. Those countries who rallied around the U.S. following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have slowly but certainly realized the folly of the invasion and in particular the occupation of Iraq.

The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq now. Bush recently said that 30,000 troops would return home soon, some by Christmas and the remainder by next spring. That, however, will bring the number of U.S. soldiers and Marines to around the pre-surge count of about 130,000. Many of these loyal and brave soldiers are doing their second or third tours in Iraq.

Other than Britain, the country that sent the most troops to Iraq is South Korea with an initial deployment of 3,600 troops in 2003. That number has fallen now to 1,200. Australia, which deployed 2,000 in 2003, is now down to about 800.

Georgia, however, maintains about the same number of troops, 2,000, that it sent during the invasion. After the British pullout, that could make Georgia the top U.S. ally in Iraq.

Most of the other countries have fewer than 100 soldiers in Iraq and most of those are in non-combat roles.

More than 3,800 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed in Iraq. Thousands of others have been seriously wounded. The surge has had some effect, at least for now. The September death toll for U.S. troops was the lowest in months.

And there are areas of Iraq where significant progress has been made. No one can question the loyalty or courage of our troops in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. They have done it well and sometimes with less support than they needed.

But "winning" this war simply does not seem possible. If the United States remains stubborn about staying in Iraq until the country is stabilized then we are in for a very long, very costly campaign.

To deny that Iraq has fallen into civil war and continues its deadly cycle of sectarian violence is foolish. To believe that we can stop a power struggle that is not only based on religious beliefs but also on power and money is naive.

In the meantime, the United States puts more of the responsibility on its shoulders and upon the backs of young men and women who are proudly doing their duty.

Mike Jones 581-8332
mike.jones@tulsaworld.com