British soldiers must be feeling a little dizzy. Gordon Brown has made some big promises to them about troop numbers in Iraq, which have invariably proved inaccurate. Remember the 1,000 troops home for Christmas? And the halving of British troops serving in Iraq to 2,500 by the Spring? Ministers have either done some creative work on definitions of “home” or blamed changing conditions on the ground. But, from what I have been told, it has as much to do with the prime minister’s penchant for round numbers.
Mr Brown’s role in the “1,000 home for Christmas” has been well reported. The catchy announcement was made without consulting the Ministry of Defence. There was then a scramble to work out how the pledge could be met. In the end, about 500 support troops sent to Kuwait were defined as being out of Iraq and therefore “home”.
Mr Brown’s role in the setting the 2,500 target for the draw down in Iraq is less well known. Again, he delivered a catchy message (this time in the Commons in October): the British presence in Iraq would be halved by the Spring. The number was chosen “after detailed discussions with our military commanders, a meeting of the National Security Committee, [and] discussions with the Iraqi Government and our allies”, according to Mr Brown.
But since then, British officers have concluded there must be at least 2,800 men to be able to protect the base adequately. So even when the withdrawal resumes, we are unlikely to hit the magic 2,500 number. The rounding error had more to do with Downing St than inaccurate military plans, according to one defence insider. Another official suggested to me that the low number risked upsetting officials in the US and losing Britain any benefits, in terms of the special relationship, it has derived from taking part in the war. “They can be rather unforgiving”, the official said.
Jim Pickard
Kiran Stacey
