U.S. Asks Britian For More Troops

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This thing just gets worse and worse. Bush keeps saying we have enough troops and won't start the draft. Now U.S. generals are asking the British for help.

Either get the hell out of there or get the needed troops over there!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
LONDON, Oct 20 (AFP) - Britain has not yet decided whether to send 650 troops to relieve US forces in Iraq (news - web sites), Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said Wednesday, while rejecting suggestions that such a move would be aimed at boosting US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s electoral campaign.

No, a decision has not been taken," Blair told parliament in a stormy question-and-answer session in which he was repeatedly quizzed as to the reasons for the possible deployment.

Blair insisted it had nothing to do with close ally Bush's prospects in the US presidential election on November 2.
"This is nothing to do with the American elections. It has everything, however, to do with the Iraqi elections in January," Blair said.
The prime minister was due later Wednesday to meet with Iraqi interim Vice President Rowsch Shaways.

On Monday, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announced that US generals had asked for some British troops to fill in for American forces as they battled insurgents elsewhere in the country.
It has not been revealed where the British personnel might be sent, but a series of reports have pointed to violence-wracked towns close to Baghdad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041020/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us&cid=1514&ncid=1480

[broncogary]

So if he has a coalition, however small, and tries to utilize it's assets, he gets criticized there too.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So if he has a coalition, however small, and tries to utilize it's assets, he gets criticized there too.
WOW! a 2 line reply this time.

[broncogary]

WOW! a 2 line reply this time.

That was only one line.

This is two lines.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

This thing just gets worse and worse. Bush keeps saying we have enough troops and won't start the draft. Now U.S. generals are asking the British for help.

Either get the hell out of there or get the needed troops over there!!!!!!!!!!!!


Did you even read the entire article or are you purposely misleading with your statements? The US is asking for the redeployment of 650 British troops already in country. One more time, 650 troops. Why so few if the US is lacking the needed troop strength in country?

Simply asking for the redeployment of troops from a quiet portion of the country to somewhere closer to Baghdad to free up some more US troops to hunt insurgents is not some major concession that the required troop strength levels aren't there. If they didn't have the number of troops, they'd be asking that more soldiers be sent there that aren't presently, instead of asking for the redeployment of so few.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Did you even read the entire article or are you purposely misleading with your statements? The US is asking for the redeployment of 650 British troops already in country. One more time, 650 troops. Why so few if the US is lacking the needed troop strength in country?

Simply asking for the redeployment of troops from a quiet portion of the country to somewhere closer to Baghdad to free up some more US troops to hunt insurgents is not some major concession that the required troop strength levels aren't there. If they didn't have the number of troops, they'd be asking that more soldiers be sent there that aren't presently, instead of asking for the redeployment of so few.
Yep I read it. U.S. general asks the Britsh for more troops. Britain has not yet decided whether to send 650 troops to relieve US forces in Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday

Why would the U.S. ask for any troops at all if, as Bush has said, we have enough?

U.S. and foreign officials say it is increasingly clear that more armed forces will be needed in Iraq over coming months to secure the nation's first democratic elections, to protect against the possibility of an insurgent offensive during Ramadan and to allow U.S. commanders to launch a major counteroffensive to quell the rebellion in the Sunni Triangle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45683-2004Sep23.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why would the U.S. ask for any troops at all if, as Bush has said, we have enough?


Another bush flip-flop.

Just like the "I'm not really all that concerned about him (Osama)" statement.

[broncogary]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=8&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq

Britain to Redeploy 850 Troops in Iraq

Thu Oct 21, 4:00 PM ET

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - In a step fraught with risks for Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), Britain agreed Thursday to send 850 of its soldiers from relatively peaceful southern Iraq (news - web sites) to a volatile area near Baghdad, freeing U.S. troops to step up attacks on insurgent strongholds west of the capital.


AP Photo




Latest headlines:
· Insurgents Infiltrating Iraq Have Cash
AP - 40 minutes ago
· Democrats Again Say Iraq Intel Misused
AP - 41 minutes ago
· Soldier Takes Responsibility in Iraq Abuse
AP - 46 minutes ago
Special Coverage





The move is part of a coalition effort to bring order to Iraq before elections in January. But British lawmakers, many of whom opposed the war, are angry, fearing a major increase in British casualties. And some are grumbling that Britain is "bailing out" President Bush (news - web sites) in his bid for re-election.


The Bush administration welcomed the redeployment, with White House spokesman Scott McClellan saying, "We appreciate the contribution," and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher praising Britain's key role in the U.S.-led coalition.


"It just demonstrates, once again, the kind of role that Britain is prepared to play in a matter that affects their security and our security, the security of all of us, and that is stabilizing Iraq and helping the people of Iraq take control of their destiny and reconstruct their country," Boucher said.


Meeting a request from U.S. commanders, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said an armored battle group from the First Battalion Black Watch would move from its base around the southern port city of Basra into a U.S.-controlled sector close to the capital. Sunni insurgents have been carrying out daily attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqis in the area.


The battalion, complete with support units of medics, signalers and engineers, would stay for a limited period of time, "weeks rather than months," Hoon said. Britain's chief of defense staff, Gen. Sir Michael Walker, later said the deployment would last a maximum of 30 days.


"The government remains totally committed in its support of the interim Iraqi government and the need to hold free elections in January. We also remain committed to protecting innocent Iraqis, to dealing with terrorists, kidnappers and criminals," Hoon told the House of Commons as lawmakers groaned with disapproval.


He declined to give further details of the "location, duration or specifics of the mission," citing security reasons, and did not say when the move will take place.


The American military wants the British to assume security responsibility in areas close to Baghdad, so U.S. Marines and soldiers can be shifted to insurgency strongholds west of the capital, including Fallujah.


U.S. and Iraqi officials want to restore government control to Fallujah, Ramadi and other Sunni Muslim cities in that area and have warned they will use force if negotiations with community leaders there fail.


The redeployment is politically sensitive for Blair, whose popularity has plummeted because of his support for the Iraq war.


Britain's 8,500 troops are based around Basra, and sending British soldiers into the more dangerous U.S.-controlled sector carries a risk of higher casualties. Sixty-eight British soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began last year, the Defense Ministry said.


With British national elections widely expected next year, Blair has fought to shift the focus back to domestic policies. But the redeployment, and the increased dangers British troops will face, ensure Iraq will remain in the spotlight, making many lawmakers uneasy. Fifty-eight lawmakers from Blair's 407-strong Labour Party have signed a motion demanding a Commons vote on whether the movement should go ahead.


Blair and his officials insist the move is a purely military matter.


"The decision is both militarily sensible and contributes to our overall strategic aim of ensuring elections take place in January 2005," Walker said Thursday.


The troops will remain under day-to-day operational command of Maj. Gen. Bill Rollo, the British commander in Basra. But they will be under the tactical control of the U.S. 24th Marine Expeditionary Force so they can coordinate with American soldiers on the ground.


Some of Blair's lawmakers are suspicious the redeployment is a political gesture, allowing Bush to tell voters in the closing days of the presidential race that U.S. forces are not alone in the most volatile areas of Iraq.


Labour left-winger Dennis Skinner, a vocal opponent of the war, spoke out against the redeployment and said he was "mirroring the views of millions of people in Britain."

"Don't you think it is slightly ironic that the American president and his vice president, who both refused to face the muck and bullets in Vietnam, are now calling upon British forces to bail them out?" he asked Hoon during a Commons debate Thursday.

Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Black Watch was filling in for U.S. troops expected to launch an all-out offensive on Fallujah — an attack they said would undoubtedly cause civilian casualties.

"Time and again, most regrettably, so-called precision American airstrikes have resulted in significant Iraqi civilian casualties, including women and children," Conservative lawmaker Sir John Stanley said.

"Assuming this pattern continues, what assessment have you made of the risk, not only to the Black Watch but British forces generally, being unjustifiably associated in the Iraqi public mind with having caused civilian casualties?"

Labour lawmaker John Denham warned of a voter backlash against Blair.

"Would you accept that there is a political cost to this decision? It will be borne in part by our political party, perhaps more importantly in the standing of this country abroad if the civilian deaths we fear turn out to be on the scale that people are worried about," Denham said.

[mosca]

Why would the U.S. ask for any troops at all if, as Bush has said, we have enough?


we have enough troops to get the job done - but that doesn't mean that more can't or won't help, especially in the country's trouble spots. this redeployment of brit troops is sound military strategy and your response is just more of the same old negative spin.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

we have enough troops to get the job done - but that doesn't mean that more can't or won't help, especially in the country's trouble spots. this redeployment of brit troops is sound military strategy and your response is just more of the same old negative spin.
No, it's calling out what is going on over there. To police that country we need thousands more troops there. Bush doesn't dare increase troops there before the election so politics determines how safe our troops are.
This isn't only my perspective but from many generals and people in position to know including one of our own members who is there.

[mosca]

No, it's calling out what is going on over there. To police that country we need thousands more troops there. Bush doesn't dare increase troops there before the election so politics determines how safe our troops are.
This isn't only my perspective but from many generals and people in position to know including one of our own members who is there.

i agree with you that more troops should be there and should have been from the get go. policing a country is much more difficult than conquering it.

nevertheless - these are the troops that are over there now - that's what we have to work with. i don't see a reason to criticize using them in the most effective and efficient manner possible.