BRIT TROOPS DUE BACK IN THICK OF IT

New York Post ^ | 10/17/04 | Post Wire Services

[conservative in nyc]

Up to 650 British troops may move into more dangerous areas near Baghdad to cover for U.S. units battling insurgents in the rebel-held city of Fallujah and elsewhere, reports said yesterday.

Such shifts would mark the first time those troops have operated outside the relatively quiet Basra area of southern Iraq, where 8,000 British soldiers are stationed.

The threat of more British casualties will no doubt be uncomfortable to Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose unpopular decision to join President Bush in the March 2003 invasion has hurt his poll ratings and divided his party.

Britain's contribution to the invasion last year was its largest deployment since the Korean War 50 years ago — but was still only about one-sixth the size of the U.S. force.

Since the start of the war, 68 British soldiers have died, compared with over 1,000 U.S. deaths.

Analysts said such a request for help underlined the scale of problems facing the Americans.

"It probably points to the difficulty of the United States in getting enough troops over to Iraq — we're up against the limits of U.S. military power," said military analyst Charles Heyman of Jane's World Armies. Independent defense analyst Paul Beaver agreed. "There are more and more insurgents, the borders are porous and there are only a certain number of troops available," he said.

[conservative in nyc]

This article is from Post wire services, not its own resporters. I'm not sure why a realignment of troops to areas where they are more needed "points to the difficulty of the United States in getting enough troops over to Iraq". It only points to a strategic decision to shift resources to where they are more needed.

[Kurt_D]

The bottomline is.... we gotta take care of business.