More Troops to Iraq

#2
A different, but interesting, story just published by the Sunday Times:

British troops get new Iraq role
Tony Allen-Mills, Washington and Andrew Porter

THE role of British troops in Iraq may change radically after elections at the end of this month, according to senior Washington officials. Instead of being restricted largely to policing in the south, British soldiers could face greater danger as part of rapid response units backing up newly trained Iraqi forces across the country.

British commanders are pressing for a rethink of the coalition’s strategy after the election. Fears that Iraq could disintegrate into civil war prompted the Pentagon last week to dispatch a retired four-star general to conduct a formal review of the US-led military effort.

“Looking past the elections, we must change from the Brits just doing their bit in the south and leaving the US to do the rest,” one Washington official said. “We need to move to more responsive intelligence-led operations, as we did in the Balkans. And that suits British capabilities.”

Officials in London insist that any changes will be part of a long-term exit strategy and will not amount to a blank cheque for British troops to be used as cannon fodder.

Tony Blair will be keen to ensure the moves are not seen as what one source described as “another Black Watch” — a reference to the deployment of British soldiers to support the US-led attack on Falluja last November.

“The operation in Falluja was incredibly controversial, but did show the Brits are willing, if there is a specific job, within a specific time frame, to extend their geographical remit,” said a UK defence official.

“We do have capabilities in these areas of support and experience, but it will need to be presented as part of an exit strategy where we have people working alongside Iraqi security forces.”

Debate about the British role is expected to begin in earnest after General Gary Luck, a former head of US forces in South Korea, reports back to Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary.

Luck’s report is expected soon after the January 30 election, but it is unlikely to shift the coalition’s central strategy, which is to promote locally trained Iraqi forces to an increasingly visible frontline role while coalition troops are used as back-up.

“It’s like the old Northern Ireland model,” said one official in London. “You put a local bobby on the street and behind him . . . is the ability to back him up with whatever strength is appropriate.”

British commanders believe the speed and flexibility of their units make them better suited than their American counterparts for the back-up operations that are likely to be necessary until Iraqi troops can stand on their own.

But greater British exposure to insurgent violence may spread unease at Westminster and increase political pressure on Blair.
...
full story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431471,00.html
 
#3
Hackle ,

A black hole comes to mind, hope I am wrong :cry:
 
#4
“It’s like the old Northern Ireland model,” said one official in London. “You put a local bobby on the street and behind him . . . is the ability to back him up with whatever strength is appropriate.”
That quote never came from a soldier.

Supporting the police, absolutely, but "a local bobby on the street"? BOLLOX

This kind of spin does our cause no good at all.
 
#5
So let me get this straight. The benefit of the peace process in NI was a reduction of troops required to carry out that commitment. Now what do you do with the best part of 10000 troops..... Oh.

Do you know, I think I have got into the decision cycle of TCH. Its a bad place.
8O
 
#6
Joker said:
So let me get this straight. The benefit of the peace process in NI was a reduction of troops required to carry out that commitment. Now what do you do with the best part of 10000 troops..... Oh.

Do you know, I think I have got into the decision cycle of TCH. Its a bad place.
8O
Try not to get into his OODA loop. 8O
 
#9
But they could be moved to more dangerous areas around Baghdad if needed.
I didn't realise the 'W' and 'C' keys were so close together :roll:

Time to get on the blower to Taher Habbush and ask him if he wants to set up his old teams again.

Unpalatable I know , but is there really another choice? We have to hit the ground running fast in the run up and aftermath of the elections, and we will need some proper , connected bad b*stards on our team.
 
#10
hackle said:
A different, but interesting, story just published by the Sunday Times:

British troops get new Iraq role
Tony Allen-Mills, Washington and Andrew Porter

THE role of British troops in Iraq may change radically after elections at the end of this month, according to senior Washington officials. Instead of being restricted largely to policing in the south, British soldiers could face greater danger as part of rapid response units backing up newly trained Iraqi forces across the country.

British commanders are pressing for a rethink of the coalition’s strategy after the election. Fears that Iraq could disintegrate into civil war prompted the Pentagon last week to dispatch a retired four-star general to conduct a formal review of the US-led military effort.

“Looking past the elections, we must change from the Brits just doing their bit in the south and leaving the US to do the rest,” one Washington official said. “We need to move to more responsive intelligence-led operations, as we did in the Balkans. And that suits British capabilities.”

Officials in London insist that any changes will be part of a long-term exit strategy and will not amount to a blank cheque for British troops to be used as cannon fodder.

Tony Blair will be keen to ensure the moves are not seen as what one source described as “another Black Watch” — a reference to the deployment of British soldiers to support the US-led attack on Falluja last November.

“The operation in Falluja was incredibly controversial, but did show the Brits are willing, if there is a specific job, within a specific time frame, to extend their geographical remit,” said a UK defence official.

“We do have capabilities in these areas of support and experience, but it will need to be presented as part of an exit strategy where we have people working alongside Iraqi security forces.”

Debate about the British role is expected to begin in earnest after General Gary Luck, a former head of US forces in South Korea, reports back to Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary.

Luck’s report is expected soon after the January 30 election, but it is unlikely to shift the coalition’s central strategy, which is to promote locally trained Iraqi forces to an increasingly visible frontline role while coalition troops are used as back-up.

“It’s like the old Northern Ireland model,” said one official in London. “You put a local bobby on the street and behind him . . . is the ability to back him up with whatever strength is appropriate.”

British commanders believe the speed and flexibility of their units make them better suited than their American counterparts for the back-up operations that are likely to be necessary until Iraqi troops can stand on their own.

But greater British exposure to insurgent violence may spread unease at Westminster and increase political pressure on Blair.
...
full story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431471,00.html
"Run story up Flagpole" and"See who salutes it" are the phrases that come to mind when I see "b]according to senior Washington officials".[/b]
 
#11
If the country has 14 stable provinces and 4 that arent, it would make sense to move forces out of the stable areas into indian country in an effort to stamp out the insurgency.
 
#12
polyglory said:
The rubber band is about to snap, hope like hell nothing else goes wrong anywhere on this Planet, that is not planned on B-liars agenda :evil:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13279820,00.html
Scotland on Sunday
Sun 9 Jan 2005

Scots Fusiliers 'heading for Iraq'
NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN

BRITISH forces in Iraq are set to be dramatically bolstered by almost 700 troops of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, it was claimed last night.

The deployment of the troops is expected to be announced this week and is intended to boost security in the run-up to the January 30 elections after a marked increase in the level of violence in the country.

It is understood that 660 troops from the First Battalion of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, which is currently based in Cyprus and recruits from the Glasgow area, will be sent to Iraq by the end of the week....
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=25792005
 
#13
So let me get this straight. The benefit of the peace process in NI was a reduction of troops required to carry out that commitment. Now what do you do with the best part of 10000 troops..... Oh.

Do you know, I think I have got into the decision cycle of TCH. Its a bad place.

It's quite simple really.

Northern Ireland = NI.
Northern Iraq = NI.

A mere shift of 10,000 troops!
 
#14
Why are we reducing numbers in NI? When according to a Green hatted mate who has just been posted in, it is still rather busy 'over the water'.
Then again, I'm just a simple JO with a blue suit who should no better than to ask questions :?
 
#15
Call me a cynic if you will,
but i'm getting a distinctly Scottish feel for our current flavour of troops in theatre,
Just departed Black Watch
Here currently IBn Scots Guards
Now R.H.F. to come as well
Funny how all these troops suddenly become available..........
BLIAR and TCH aren't trying to empty our northern voting areas come election time ????
Do they fear a backlash ??????
 
#16
aye clerkofdeath, Tony planned all this, sneakily putting Scottish Regiments in each of the deployable Brigades so that there are fewer jocks around. my arrse!

The op tour plot works by Brigade, not country of origin of the troops. Granted the Warminster Bn does not 'normally' deploy on ops, but the fact that they are currently Scottish was probably not considered in the decision making.
 
#18
It's less than a month since TCH, while quite rightly refusing to rule it out, went out of his way to play down the possibility of sending additional troops to Iraq for the elections period:
Monday, December 13, 2004. 2:12am (AEDT)
Hoon rules out further troop commitment before Iraq elections

Britain has no plans to send more troops to Iraq before next month's elections there, the defence minister says, speaking after the United States announced this month it was deploying 12,000 more soldiers.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon made this clear in a BBC television interview when questioned about the need for more troops from Britain.

"I've never ruled that out but equally there isn't any evidence at the present time that that is likely," he said.

Britain has about 9,000 soldiers in Iraq, mostly in the relatively stable southern region around Basra.

"We have no plans at the present time to significantly increase numbers," he said.

"If the security situation changes significantly we'll obviously consider adjusting our force levels. From what I saw the other day, from the advice I've been receiving, it's not necessary at the present time."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1263435.htm
 
#20
With the announcement that 400 more troops are going to Iraq one can only assume that the Defense Minister was observing opsec when he denied having plans to deploy additional troops to the sand box.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top