Army chiefs resist call for more Iraq troops

[Pacifier]

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?

[Kadath]

[sarcasm]
They should like our tactics; they sure worked against them in the Revolutionary War!
[/sarcasm]
I don't think this really says that much. I understand why the British hesitate to put more troops in. I don't think it's odd that the British want to run their armies their own way, and I doubt a conflict could arise between the US and England based on this.

[Paradise Lost]

Yeah, it just seems to me they are taking it very slowly, letting
everything fall into place piece by piece. And since we haven't
done much to help in terms of actually ceasing fire and being
patient with what we're doing, the British are smart to hold
back some.

[irateplatypus]

Originally posted by Paradise Lost
And since we haven't
done much to help in terms of actually ceasing fire and being
patient with what we're doing, the British are smart to hold
back some.

our rules of engagement right now dictate that we will only fire when fired upon. i can't think of a policy with more restraint unless you count just waiting till you get killled.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by irateplatypus
i can't think of a policy with more restraint unless you count just waiting till you get killled.

Yeah, of course the waiting till you get killed strategy tends to limit the ability to counterattack.

[Zeld2.0]

Well to be honest the wait til you are fired upon is practically the only way to handle the situation.. if you want and get killed theres no counterattack.. if you go in guns blazing killing everyone there isn't much of a country to save either...

[MSD]

When you boil it down to the basics, it's their armed forces we're talking about, they should be able to make their own decisions. If we want more help from them, we'll have to sit down, talk, and work out a new plan.

I'm not sure what's so heavy-handed about our tactics at the moment. We're asking for surrender of weapons from militants, and when they don't, we move on them for a while, then try again. For some reason, I don't think this is something that can be settled over tea and crumpets.

[OFKU0]

Originally posted by irateplatypus
our rules of engagement right now dictate that we will only fire when fired upon. i can't think of a policy with more restraint unless you count just waiting till you get killled.

Well you're right in that sense and they should rightfully defend themselves. The restraint bit,...I'm not qualified to say.