Posted on 05/30/2004 4:05:30 AM PDT by tjwmason
Tony Blair's decision to postpone the announcement of crucial troop reinforcements for Iraq until after the local and European elections has infuriated defence chiefs.
Senior officers believe that the decision to delay deployment plans could have serious consequences for the 8,700 British troops in Iraq.
They fear the delay will be seen by insurgents as a sign of weakness and will encourage more attacks on troops.
"The Government can't fight the war as though it were taking place in Surrey," said one senior officer, accusing ministers of risking the lives of troops for short-term political advantage. "We have to be bold, strong and decisive."
He continued: "Military strategy has become subservient to political expediency. We want to get on with the task [of reinforcement], but we're being held back for political reasons - namely [next week's] elections. The assumption is that the electorate will launch a protest vote because of growing disenchantment with the crisis in Iraq.
"Security in southern Iraq is deteriorating daily. The enemy is becoming more confident and using a wider range of weapons. The prognosis is not good."
Defence chiefs have been pressing No 10 for 4,000 more troops to be sent in a move that would see the whole of southern Iraq come under the control of the British-dominated Nato Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps.
Last week, however, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that only a token force of 200 armoured infantry troops and 170 engineers was being sent.
Ian Gibson, the Labour chairman of the Commons science and technology select committee, said he thought plans for large-scale reinforcements were being kept in ministers' "bottom drawers". "This would be a very difficult time politically to send more troops, given the unpopularity of the war and its aftermath," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
A note to all Freepers who are fans of Tony Blair. This is what he is really like, this is just what Kerry or Clinton would do, Blair is a cross between the two.
Interesting thought: Who in the dem party reflects a cross between Kerry and Clinton?
Gary Condit?
No other flip-flopping smarmy old sluts come to mind..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.