Blair studies Iraq options as rift with US is exposed (Tories might not support more troops)

The Times ^ | May 24, 2004 | By Michael Evans and Rosemary Bennett

[Eurotwit]

TONY BLAIR will be presented with final plans to deploy more troops to Iraq this week amid growing alarm over US military tactics. Although Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has indicated that there is no hurry to make a decision on reinforcements, the options were drawn up at a meeting of Armed Forces chiefs last week and are expected to be presented to the Cabinet on Thursday.

The principal aim of deploying troops in the central south of Iraq would be to increase British influence and promote a softly-softly peacekeeping approach, a defence source said.

However there was little sign that a conciliatory approach was gaining momentum outside the areas under British command yesterday when troops smashed into a mosque in Kufa, 90 miles south of Baghdad, with an armoured vehicle.

They stormed the building during a raid on headquarters used by Shia insurgents loyal to Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr. At least 20 al-Mahdi army fighters were reported to have been killed. The violence came on the day that a leaked Foreign Office memo revealed criticism of “heavy-handed US tactics” in Fallujah and Najaf.

It said that the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison had sapped the moral authority of the coalition, and urged Britain to “redouble our efforts to ensure a sensible and sensitive US approach to military operations”.

Foreign Office staff made little attempt to distance themselves from the document, saying that they did not comment on leaks. The sentiments and the language in the memo chimed with concerns voiced recently by senior officials.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise American operations in Iraq publicly but came under renewed pressure yesterday when Michael Howard gave warning that the Conservatives would not necessarily back the deployment of extra troops.

The Conservative leader, who has been criticised by members of his own party for abandoning the bipartisan approach to the war, said that Mr Blair must make a convincing case for more troops before he would give him his support.

The three military options which the Cabinet will be asked to study are: to continue with the current level of 7,300 troops in southeast Iraq; to send elements of 3 Commando Brigade as reinforcements to take over the multinational division in central south Iraq, which includes Najaf; or to send elements of the British-led Nato Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) to take over in central south Iraq.

Downing Street is increasingly optimistic that this week will mark a turning point in the conflict, with attention switching from violence to the handover of sovereignty on June 30.

Mr Blair is banking on a series of speeches from President Bush, outlining the broader goals of democracy and elections next year to reassure an increasingly sceptical public.

Officials in London also believe that a new UN resolution will make clear the transfer of sovereignty is “genuine”, heading off accusations that Mr Blair has failed to convince Mr Bush of the need let the Iraqis run their own country.

Discussions with other UN Security Council members will shift up a gear this week, with a draft likely to emerge early next month.

Mr Bush plans to give six speeches on Iraq over the next five weeks as he struggles to shift attention away from violence and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. However, in tonight’s address, he is not expected to offer many new details about the transfer of power, talking instead of the importance of sticking to the timetable for elections in January. Mr Blair will also use this week to talk up the prospects for a successful handover.

[gary_b_UK]

What the Tories are doing here is opportunism, and it is not surprising really.

The left-wingers, ministers who have been sacked by Blair, and other who were against the war in Blair's Labour Party are trying to force a vote in the Commons for new deployments to Iraq.

Blair does not need permission from Parliament to deploy troops, he didn't even need it to have Britain join in the Iraq War, as he can use what is known as the Royal Prerogative i.e. using the Queen's reserve executive powers. What Blair did last year in allowing a vote for war was a courtesy, he did not need to do it.

If those mentioned above managed to force a vote on the issue of new troop deployments, saying that they do not support it, and the motion for it was carried, I suspect it could fatally damage Blair. It is unlikely to happen, but it is a possiblity.

[pau1f0rd]

the Torries deserve an eternity in the wilderness

They're addressing the patriotic concerns of the nation, that British troops are to be sacrificed for the sole benefit of foreigners (Iraq and the USA). If Blair has valid security reasons for sending more men to Iraq, then he can share them with the Tories and then they'll be in a position to support, which they will.

[The_Royal_Navy]

(( Blair does not need permission from Parliament to deploy troops, he didn't even need it to have Britain join in the Iraq War, as he can use what is known as the Royal Prerogative i.e. using the Queen's reserve executive powers. ))


True,..

You know the Queen can even still have someones head choped off, if the Royal 'We' so wishes... They never revoked that power Either,.

Or At least that's as far as 'I' know anyway...


(With Vangaurd Class nuclear submarines in replace of Battle ships at her beck and call, God help the world if she ever did a 'King Gorge the 3rd' on us')

i'd be very suprized if she had 'that much' power tho.