So, what do you all think about Britain moving troops...

[Daveb]

....further up North in Iraq to fill in behind the US forces, and also be under the control of them.

Me personally am all for it, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in Iraq and since 9/11.

What do you feel about it?

[Kat =^..^=]

I have to disagree with you on this one, I don't think we should be sending anymore troops anywhere except home. I certainly don't agree with them making up US troop numbers and even more strongly disagree with them being under US control. They aren't bits of kit of be swopped around at Tony Blairs whim, and neither is this a playground where swoppsies are acceptable.

"Yeah you can have three of my army companies if I can have two of those rebuilding iraq profitable building programmes..."

Sorry but I believe it's an absolute disgrace. If people that joined the British military wanted to be ruled by america they would emigrated and joined said military.

Keep British Military under British Rule.

[Jon]

I also disagree with it. Why should we send our troops to fight for the US when the US has hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed around the world to call upon?

It was only a few weeks ago that Paul Bremner accused the US of having insufficient troop numbers in Iraq; an accusation which the administration promptly denied. Calling in more troops now would be a political mistake by Bush so near to the Presidential elections as it would show that Bremner was right all along. An expansion of British operations would remove the need for Bush to call in more troops at the expense of votes. Plus al-Zarqawis head on a plate would be beneficial to Bush in the next few weeks.

The fact that Britain and the US has stood shoulder to shoulder in Iraq is only beneficial to the Americans.

[Frank S.]

The US is apparently calling up more troops. Specifically the 11th Armored Division (Blackhorse), which is a training division (OPFOR) from Ft. Irwin, California.
Its 3500 strong and is reportedly going to be deployed to Iraq for one year of combat duty.
There are some troublesome implications to deploying a Division whose role is to raise both the expertise and readiness of so many other US Army components, and the initial reports haven't yet been confirmed.
If it does turn out to be true (in conjunction with requesting UK troops redeployment), though, this seems to indicate how bad things are getting over there.

[Redhand]

I think they should DaveB. It's quite true that the US has no one left. I mean, some National Guard units are already on their THIRD rotation.

I don't see what kind of coaliton it is, if everyone bails when the going gets tough.

As for them being Tony Blairs pawns, unfortunately they are. The British public voted him in.

[Tab]

When one is talking about rotation of troops, it would appear that a rotation is about 6 months which is not long enough to get used to what you are dealing with. no sooner are you learning the tricks of the trade it looks like they ship you of home. When you go back a lot of the men you go back with are first timers so you start again. I know it's nice for the troops to get home every 6 months but it can be counter productive.
Now should we send out troops further in to Iraq, well if it helps bring an end to troubles that bit closer then yes, my only concern is over their control, not that american Officers are bad but we have differnt ways of doing things. Now if they give out the missions and just our troops get on with it in their own way, but giving help that they ask for then things should go a bit better.
What ever any one says we are there and it is in every ones interest to end these troubles as quickly as possible.

[Chappy]

Let the UK commanders control the US troops. Think that would reap more reward.

[flo]

At the end of the day we can all argue the pro's and con's of military intervention in Iraq and Americas influence, but in gods honesty what does arguement achieve. We are all political pawns at the end of the day and billy liar and the other puppet dont really give a damn. I AM A WIFE WHO AT THE MOMENT IS PLANNING-YES PLANNING TO SAY GOODBYE ONCE AGAIN. I think i speak on behalf of the majority of wives, parents and loved ones when i say that this war is a political one and no amount of argueing amougst the lower ranks(and i mean tht with full respect) will make any difference to any propaganda already on the agenda. I personally would like my hubby and his oppos's home safe and sound, but i vowed to stand by him and not in front of him and i will do that for no matter how long it takes to bring terrorism into line with HUMAN beliefs. But in the meantime i wish everyone of the lads and lasses out there the bestof health and the best of luck.

[Jason The Argonaut]

If they wish the UK forces to deploy troops further north, then the UK should have more of a say of how this war is being fought. Because if the US is going to run around to each town/city blow the shit out of it then ask us to mop it up. Then I believe we deserve more say on how things are run.

[lew]

It's ok as long as they can do things the British way under British command.

lew

[Guest]

Its purely political reasons why they are being moved, in co-ordination with US elections. I disagree with the move therefore.

However, if it will bring more stability to the area and allow the US to supress the town of Falluja (sp?) to help in the stopping of attacks to coalition troops, i am all for it. And as Col Tim Collins said on the radio yesterday, it is better to have 600 well trained proffessional British Soldiers in Baghdad than to have thousands of poorly trained yanks, because after all, We have the experience (Northen Ireland) the Yanks don't.

James

[dalo]

well said james that is so true and it is evident fom the start of the war with british troops in basra they employed tactics used in northen ireland for example making friends with locals etc

[Grimey Vibes]

A work collegue said to me yesterday how America have the bad parts of Iraq and the British who occupy Basra have it quite. I just said to him that the American's are hated because of they way they go about Buissness, where as the brits have won over a lot of people in Basra with hearts and minds that they get no trouble, maybe that is the reason.

[Kat =^..^=]

Flo, we've most of us been there, not just the married one's. As for bringing terriorism in line with human rights ... who's human rights are we talking about here? the people of Fulluja? surely not all of them are terriorists? anyway, the thread is about the military and not the human loss.

I agree with Collins, better to have a few well trained British Soldiers than lots of american ones.

Klank, I also agree with your point, wouldn't it not be better to have the British and american troops under the command of a Britsh OC?

[Tab]

just a thought, many of the big trouble spots were nice and quite when they where under the American Paratroopers, the trouble boiled up when they were stood down and the Americam Marines moved in, full of gung ho
and we are in charge attitude, then the current troubles started.