Perhaps no one has mentioned it because they don't need to evacuate by road via Basra. They can airlift everything back out. They came in over land because they couldn't exactly fly in.

" Except"

Except nothing. At best that is an a idiotic comment, at worst deliberate disinformation. A Galaxy can hold 81 troops according to your link. That's tens of thousands of flights ignoring equipment of which there is a fair amount. The US forces will retreat by road to Kuwait. There just aren't enough Galaxies in the world, never mind enough safe runway in Iraq for any other option.

Don't take my word for it, ask any soldier, or Andrew Krepinevich of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, who said "It's our primary supply line to Iraq. If the south becomes destabilized, could we still withdraw through Kuwait? Do we have to find some other way to get our equipment to a port?".

Look at the map - there is no other port available without invading a third country.

The US convoys of trucks of supplies to Bagdad is a weak point in their occupation, why the resistance doesn't target this long route more is a mystery, remember this warning:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358546.html

They would use the Galaxies for tanks and perhaps helicopter gunships and the such and personnel would be jetted out on liners and other available aircraft. The C-5 was obviously designed for moving large heavy objects. It could carry more personnel if more seats are installed in the cargo area, but I doubt they'd need to or want to.

The Pentagon will at any rate abandon/destroy equipment if they are faced with heavy casualties as an option.

The fighter jets would probably eventually evacuate to Germany or to carriers. Chinooks could also dump light vehicles and personnel in nearby countries or even on ships if they had to.

The airlift would be speeded up by dumping personnel and any equipment in nearby Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Qatar, Saudi, other friendly Gulf States, Central Asia, Pakistan etc. the same places they used in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the Iraq invasion.

Much of these procedures are already standard practice on a smaller, regular scale.

There's a big difference between a staggered withdrawal and a retreat under hostile conditions. They would avoid retreating through hostile ground at all costs unless they really had to. It's common sense; there is no tactical advantage in going on the ground and there is no enemy air force.

If they had to, and the only reason I could see for that would be that the airports were destroyed, they would escort and protect the whole convoy with helicopters, jet fighters, armoured vehicles and ad hoc infantry positions along the route. And given the US's track record it is more likely that the local civilian population would take the most casualties.

They would seek to get permission from Turkey and Saudi to cross into their territory to avoid centralising everything. And they would quite possibly enter Jordan and Syria without permission, "What are they going to do about it?"

I totally agree with Andrew Krepinevich. His questions are obviously rhetorical. If they can't go through Basra they need another plan.

"If the south becomes destabilized, could we still withdraw through Kuwait?"
"Do we have to find some other way to get our equipment to a port?"

Clear enough that he is suggesting something other than a single convoy through Basra, no?

"and personnel would be jetted out on liners"

A Pentagon spokesman just put the current number of US troops at "nearly 162,000". Never mind the foreign private security, reconstruction and support contractors which is about the same number. Suggesting an airlift of these numbers is insane. It will be for the most part a continous road convoy to Basra port and direct to Kuwait as I said.

"They would seek to get permission from Turkey and Saudi to cross into their territory to avoid centralising everything."
They won't go into Turkey. They never got permission from a far friendlier government and poulace to enter from there, and in the event of a pullout the only Turkish-Iraqi traffic will be Turkish units going in to settle scores with the Kurds.

I'm not even going to ask why you think they would go on from Kuwait to Saudi Arabia. I did suggest you look at a map. Once they are in Kuwait, then they get flown and shipped out, no need to carry on.

"And they would quite possibly enter Jordan and Syria without permission, "What are they going to do about it?""

You suggest that a retreating army would risk an invasion of a foriegn country, especially a direct confrontation with the Syrian army ( who incidentally have a mutual protection pact with Iran ) simply to avoid Iraqi insurgents ? You are faking some knowledge of the situation you don't have and haven't spent five minutes thinking through.

It's common sense and the information is public.

If you look at the map yourself you'll notice that massive land border of Iraq/Saudi! And also the border with Kurdistan/Turkey.

If faced with a single convoy to Basra with everyone with a rifle, RPG or mortar taking a pop at them and the whole route being one big(ger) minefield of IEDs, they are going to look at other options.

The first will be the safest: using every available aircraft (their own and allies) and runway (be it established or extemporised on suitable desert) to airlift. At worst they are looking at keeping airfields, takeoff paths and shorter routes secure. The enemy has nothing better than limited RPGs, mortars, a few machine guns and mainly small arms at their disposal. The US have helicopter gunships with hi-tech imaging and all the rest of it. As outlined there are dozens of nearby friendly airports to receive them and much more in the EU.

Then they are going to look at land routes out. The two obvious being through the North into Kurdistan/Turkey and to the south into Saudi (which borders Kuwait and Egypt), and of course through Basra into Kuwait. Setting up multiple routes with the outlined protection is a no brainer.

They never got permission to use Turkey as an invasion staging post. It'll be a lot easier to get permission for a desperate retreat. As it would with Saudi. In the ridiculous emergency scenario you allude to, if the Pentagon were faced with losing thousands and pissing or Jordan and Syria, I don't think they'd think too long about it. They wouldn't just let them be gunned down in the desert en masse.

But your whole scenario is pretty absurd, that the US would suddenly be encircled or chased by a rapidly emerging, cohesive, well-co-ordinated, substantial enemy within Iraq. Daydream nonsense.

If such a thing even were to somehow happen the US would simply blow the whole place to dust to punch a way out.

A more likely scenario is the US will get sick of the unwinnable guerrilla war and just pack up and go.

Taking heavy losses on a land convoy the can avoid just is never going to happen.

"Taking heavy losses on a land convoy the can avoid just is never going to happen."

Unless the Empire decides that loosing some troops in Iraq would be worth it to provide a good excuse to attack Iran?

If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Paul Craig Roberts
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/372796.html

Well they do need a new excuse...

For once Danny I am in complete agreement with you. I feel you are wrong when you say that the occupation is continuing though, you don't and can't occupy a city of 1.6m with 5000 troops at the airport. It is a retreat. The comments about how the US could simply fly it's troops out instead of driving them is silly (Orville) and shows a certain lack of common sense an appreciation of what is involved. Like it or not we have surrendered Basra to a disparate band of different militias.

"They never got permission to use Turkey as an invasion staging post. It'll be a lot easier to get permission for a desperate retreat. As it would with Saudi."

No, no, no. These are crucial governments whose population, while initially hostile to helping a imperial power remove a close dictator they despised, have learned from the genocide who their real enemy is. 'We are all ragheads now'. Retreat there and those governments fall. And all the oil dries up.

Besides, the whole Saudi Arabia thing escape route thing is just absurd. You may have not noticed but the geography is hardly friendlier than if the whole of the south of Iraq attacked them. Route one. Occams razor.

Still, I realise now I am not arguing with someone over genuine military logistics. You are focussing on this with your nonsensical arguments simply to distract from the huge military embarrassment of the British surrender of Basra. The Army weren't due to retreat from Basra until they handed over to the local security forces. This hasn't happened yet. So who have they 'handed over' to ?

If you were just trying to pick a whole in my article you would have argued that Suez was a bigger humiliation. Back then, the British, Israelis and French were ordered out by the US - it was more a political humiliation than a military one. This time the British army was 'gubbed' - routed and defeated. As the US is about to be. And all you can argue about is which escape route is left for their sorry arses to distract from that fact.

Here is something I hope other people can agree with too.

While I've been fairly critical here, and I do believe all US and UK forces should withdraw as soon as is possible, I do acknowledge Iraq needs a stabilising force to reestablish order. International law and common decency calls for that, so here is a positive and obvious suggestion. I do not think any country that supported or participated in the invasion would be any improvement. The invasion was illegal but has since been recognised by the UN, which obviously wanted to impose normal international laws and duties upon the occupiers that have failed to be met.

Even Iraqis like Muqtada al Sadr are calling for a UN force. I don't think his calls go far enough, and I think it would be only sensible to have that force be mainly Islamic, and certainly free from any country that supported the invasion to avoid a similar insurgency. I suspect the fighting would die down after a few months so that force could leave. I think it should be fully funded by the US and the UK. It has to be the cheapest and least murderous option on the table. I think this is perfectably achieveable, there are several large, unused/misused Islamic armies around the world, like in Indonesia.

I also think it would be an ideal situation for Indian troops to work with Pakistani troops, which may help ease tensions there. Despite their local enmity, these countries soldiers have been proven to work well under the UN flag.

Sorry I can't find a more appropriate link than the Jersualem Post:

Muqtada al Sadr would welcome UN troops in Iraq
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1187502419494&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I think that they will most likely withdraw using both land, sea and air in an orderly manner.

But if this supposed emergency siege scenario of them running a gauntlet to Kuwait was the only land option, as mooted, they'd be doing their best to avoid it and fly as many out as possible and seeking other land routes. The idea of them walking into a beating they could easily avoid is just crazy. Not that I want to grant them with too much common sense.

But at any rate, it's all a silly argument about a silly nebulous situation that doesn't exist and isn't likely to either.

No not at all. The UK got driven out of Basra. It could have won... but only by killing everyone in Basra! I think if the US had been interested in the welfare of the people in Iraq the whole war would have played out differently. It wouldn't have happened at all if they were only concerned for the Iraqis. The sanctions proved they didn't.

Various British generals have been publicly calling for a retreat out of Basra for ages. Downing Street may try and spin it all they want, but it's quite simply Basra 1 UK 0.

I expect the same to happen to the US. I would guess that Bush will leave it to the next administartion to pull out if he can possibly avoid doing it sooner.

As I said in the article, "If the British left tommorow the US would have to move in". I was paraphrasing former US General Jack Keane from last week. I was then explaining his reasoning.

This is hardly a "silly argument about a silly nebulous situation that doesn't exist and isn't likely to either" - this is a serious and researched evaluation of the current facts on the ground and likely consequences, despite your contribution.
Have a look at the last line on this quote and then see how little it is mentioned in the British press compared to Browns 'This is not a defeat' quote.


Generals start to blame
 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22356752-28737,00.html

A CONVOY of 550 British troops successfully completed a nervous overnight drive of 11km from one Iraqi base to another yesterday, then bunkered down for the fallout.
The transfer by tanks, armoured cars and helicopters of the last British troops in central Basra to the heavily fortified airport on the outskirts of the city will have an uncertain effect on one front: the security situation within the southern Iraqi city.

While few observers have confidence in the ability of the Iraqi army that has taken over the British downtown base to maintain order in the southern city, most of the insurgent attacks in Basra during the past year have been aimed at the British troops, so their withdrawal may calm matters. But the highly symbolic withdrawal of British troops from Saddam Hussein's former southern residence, which was the last British base in any Iraqi city, is certain to cause a new outbreak of hostilities on another front: the battle of the ex-generals in Washington and London.

With the US and British governments determined to retain their public unity, it has been left to retired military leaders in each country to vent the simmering tensions over the diverging military strategies and political priorities of the two main allies in George W. Bush's coalition in Iraq.

The British redeployment has long been planned but the growing number of complaints from US military experts on the edge of the Bush administration will be fuelled by the British decision to move just two weeks before the President is expected to declare his commitment to persisting with his surge of extra troops into Baghdad.

US commander in Iraq David Petraeus is expected to report that the surge has been worthwhile, making it awkward for Bush to have his British allies heading in the opposite direction and withdrawing from Iraqi cities.

Retired US army general Jack Keane, who was vice-chief of staff during the war and is still close to Pentagon thinking, claimed last week that the British had mishandled southern Iraq so badly that US troops might have to be redeployed there to fill a security vacuum.

US plans to take over Basra if Britain withdraws all troops
September 5, 2007
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2388176.ece

The US military has drawn up contingency plans to send American troops to Basra if Gordon Brown decides to pull out the entire British force, an American general revealed yesterday. Britain still had “several missions” in southern Iraq, which the US expected it to fulfil. But if the Prime Minister withdrew all 5,000 remaining British troops, the US might have to “send some forces down there”, said Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, the second-most-senior US commander in Iraq.