Gordon Brown won't set Iraq pull-out timetable

Gordon Brown firmly rejected calls to set a "pre-determined exit timetable" for British troops to leave Iraq last night, insisting they would stay as long as necessary.

General warns of 'deadly' new Afghan phase Allan Mallinson: Allied rivalry isn't new, but we need each other Soldier's mother to sue over 'insulting' award The Prime Minister's remarks, in a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, were aimed at ending speculation rife in Washington that he may order a rapid pull-out of Britain's remaining 5,500 troops. The number of British troops in Iraq this year has already been reduced from 7,200 to 5,500 American military commanders have voiced concern in recent days over Mr Brown's reluctance to speak out about the Iraq crisis and expressed fears that Britain might order a complete pull-out from the southern city of Basra, leaving the United States to fill the void. Mr Brown told Sir Menzies that Britain had obligations both to the Iraqi government and the United Nations to stay the course until the country's own security forces were ready to deliver stability across the whole of the south. Decisions on troop deployment and other military issues would be taken on the basis of advice from commanders "on the ground", he said. His comments came as new figures show the total cost of the Iraq war has soared to £6.6 billion, making it the most costly conflict since the Second World War. "I believe that we continue to have clear obligations to discharge," the Prime Minister said. "We are there at the express invitation of the Iraqi government, implementing a UN mandate renewed last November. "We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq. These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon." The stronger language will reassure the White House that Mr Brown is not planning any major departure from the policy pursued by Tony Blair, his predecessor. On Afghanistan Mr Brown said "dangerous and difficult" tasks remained. But he stressed it was vital that the international community did not allow the country once again to become a "failed state". He said there was "much to do" and that progress would be measured in a wider sense than mere military successes against the Taliban. It would be judged according to the stability of government in the country, reconstruction, economic development and the building up of local security forces. The figures revealing the cost of the war in Iraq are based on the latest Whitehall departmental spending figures. They show that when aid, debt relief and security costs are taken into account, the total is £1.6 billion higher than the £5 billion outlay admitted by the Treasury. Call for second Iraq medal clasp Troop inquests five times longer than civilian cases Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan Experts say the £6.6 billion figure still underestimates the true total because it does not take into account hidden costs such as extra salaries and the long-term care for soldiers who have suffered mentally and physically. The costs of regular trips by politicians, diplomats and others to the region are also not included. Although the figures, calculated by the Financial Times, are dwarfed by the £200 billion-plus spent by the US government in Iraq - where American forces outnumber Britain's by 20 to one - their publication is certain to fuel calls for a speedier withdrawal of British forces from the combat zone. The number of British troops has already been reduced from 7,200 at the start of this year to 5,500 now. It is due to fall to 5,000 next month and Mr Brown is bound to face calls at the this year's TUC Congress and Labour Party conference to accelerate exit plans. The Iraq war has already proved more expensive than the Falklands conflict which, in today's prices, cost £4.2 billion. The Forces spent £956 million in Iraq in 2006-07 and £738 million in Afghanistan.