04-29-2004, 04:30 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
undead
Location: Duisburg, Germany
|
Army chiefs resist call for more Iraq troops
Quote:
British commanders fear getting sucked into US operations as Falluja battle rages
Senior military chiefs have strongly resisted proposals to send more British troops to Iraq or any extension of their area of command until clearer signals are given about their legal status after the June 30 handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government.
Britain has been under pressure to increase its military presence in the wake of the pullout of previous coalition troops, especially the Spanish. But a government source said: "The senior British military are strongly opposed to taking over the Spanish areas of command or sending further troops."
He said the resistance was coming from the top of the military, conceding: "Many things have been discussed further down the chain of command, including an extra 2,000 troops."
The difficulty which British chiefs are keen to avoid was underlined last night when American troops were involved for the third night running in heavy fighting in Falluja, the Sunni town 40 miles from Baghdad which has been under siege since the beginning of the month.
Commanders on the ground insisted that their actions were "defensive" and had been provoked by attacks on US troops despite a ceasefire.
They were backed by President George Bush, who said commanders would do whatever was necessary to secure Falluja, a position backed by the prime minister, Tony Blair, in the Commons.
However, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, said they still hoped to negotiate a solution to the dispute.
The Ministry of Defence stressed yesterday it was still looking at a range of options and would never veto a British political request to send further troops.
But senior levels of the military are dubious that extra troops, rather than more sophisticated policing and a clearer political context, will provide the long-term solution.
Military chiefs have made it clear there are serious risks involved in sending more troops, not least in getting sucked into operations determined by heavy-handed American tactics.
Mr Blair, under pressure from opposition parties in the Commons, tried to sidestep the issue by saying there had been no formal request to increase the British troop presence in Iraq.
"At the present time, we believe we have sufficient troops," he told MPs.
His reticence is explained by the fact that the British military are holding back from further involvement until the political climate is clearer.
Commanders have made it plain that they would not want British forces under American command in Iraq if more troops were eventually sent.
They have also made no secret of their concern that British troops operating with the Americans elsewhere in Iraq could cause serious problems for troops in the British-controlled area centred on Basra in southern Iraq.
"If we do it we'll do it differently," said a senior defence official, referring to the possible deployment of British soldiers elsewhere in Iraq.
"We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must fight as the Americans."
|
I find this interesting, even the British, the closest friends the USA have in the Iraq war, seem not to like the american tactics. Should the USA rethink their strategies? Or insist in doing everything "their way" even if this could mean they have to do it alone?
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
|
|
|