Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush wants 25,000 UK Iraq force
The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 03/10/2002 | Kamal Ahmed, Jason Burke and Peter Beaumont

Posted on 03/09/2002 4:42:37 PM PST by Pokey78

Britain considers joint invasion plan

America has asked Britain to draw up plans for 25,000 of this country's troops to join a US task force to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

In a move which reveals advanced US plans for the next phase of its war on terror, Government departments are considering the plans ahead of Vice-President Dick Cheney's meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow.

Cheney will come to London armed with fresh evidence against the Iraqi dictator, and will tell Tony Blair that United Nations inspections of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons may not be enough to head off a new war in the Gulf.

The request for such a large number of British troops shows the high stakes America is now playing for. It will alarm Cabinet doves, thought to include Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, and Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary and now Leader of the Commons.

The Government is already facing a split on the issue of military action against Iraq. One Minister described those who had questioned Blair's policy of fully backing a US military campaign as 'appeasers'.

'At some point people have to realise that action has to be taken,' he said.

The request for such a large number of troops is unprecedented in peacetime. It is one of three major options now being considered by the Government which has always insisted publicly that no final decisions have been made on military action against Saddam.

British troops would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq in an operation similar to Desert Storm in 1991.

The second option is one where smaller special forces units would support opposition forces within Iraq, like the tactic used in Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance was backed with air strikes and logistical support in its battle to overthrow the Taliban.

The third option - thought to be preferred by the Foreign Office - is one of 'aggressive containment'. Under this plan, air strikes against Iraq would be intensified if Saddam did not agree to a comprehensive inspections agree ment.

Cheney arrives in London ahead of a 10-day 'hearts and minds' tour of the Middle East which is seen as vital in shoring up the alliance against Iraq. After London he will visit Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Turkey.

America is confident that with enough evidence against Saddam, the White House can persuade other Arab states to support military action.

'I think they all have legitimate concerns about the regime in Iraq, and they're aware that Saddam continues to represent a threat to the security and stability of the region,' said one White House official. 'I expect they'll all want to talk about it.'

America has already begun a discreet military build-up in preparation for a ground war in Iraq. US special forces are training Iraqi militia to be ready for a strike against Saddam in the coming months.

Teams of instructors drawn from American elite regiments have been arriving in Kurdish-held areas in the north of Iraq in recent weeks, targeting the semi-autonomous areas run by the Kurdish Democratic Party.

The instructors are improving local fighters' tactical and weapons skills and teaching them how to exploit chaos caused by American air strikes. They are also drawing up lists of potential targets, a vital prerequisite to any ground offensive.

Defence sources say a battalion of 24 Longbow Apache attack helicopters also recently arrived in Kuwait. The helicopters, capable of operating up to 250 kilometres behind enemy lines, could be used to attack air defence sites and Iraqi armour in the opening air phase of any war.

In a separate development sources say more than 5,000 US fighting vehicles, mothballed in Kuwait since the end of the Gulf War, have quietly been overhauled.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britishfriends; bushdoctrineunfold; geopolitics; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Pokey78
From a military standpoint, Iraq is not an easy place to invade. Kuwait might be an ally, but you'd still have to bring all your forces up the gulf. It would be difficult to bring that much stuff overland from turkey. It might be better to just go after basra and the surrounding oil fields. Start sending the oil for free back to the US. This would cut off most, if not all, of Iraq's income. You can't buy or build weapons without money.
41 posted on 03/10/2002 5:10:46 AM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realise
"With all due respect..."

Respect? Where in your post was respect?

BTW, Bush and Blair do what is best for their repective countries, not what the "world" wants.

42 posted on 03/10/2002 7:12:26 AM PST by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: taxtruth
Bush is full of himself.Americans are all to STUPID to learn for themselves to know better.

Yeah. This pile of poor punctuation, misspelling, and fractured syntax convinces me that you're a genius. Why the hell didn't we elect you President? A terrible oversight.

43 posted on 03/10/2002 8:14:07 AM PST by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
September 11 brought the UK fully behind us. It looked like Blair was moving into The White House he was here so much. Now we have people in the UK calling this "Peace Time", and just wanting to get out of the war we are in Afghanistan. I believe when Big Time shows Blair what is up...Iraq will be glassed like we never could imagine by Summer.Then the people in Parliment and the doubters will shut up because I have a feeling the evidence is something that is going to shake Blair up.
44 posted on 03/10/2002 8:32:58 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
My first thought was, does the UK have this many people?

Yes, BA strength is around 130,000 I believe (though Tony Cavanagh will be able to correct me if I'm wrong).

Pretty stretched at the moment, though, with Kosovo, NI and various other duties around the world.

45 posted on 03/10/2002 9:15:05 AM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.
46 posted on 03/10/2002 9:21:10 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: realise
What's the matter? Why don't you tell us what's on really your mind?
47 posted on 03/10/2002 9:22:24 AM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I cannot bring myself to have faith in our "friends/allies" in this upcoming affair. We must make plans to go it alone, if need be, as our EU friends will all be wringing their hands on the sidelines.
48 posted on 03/10/2002 9:22:37 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.

Posibly, though we managed more than that in the Gulf War and the army is not much smaller now than in 1991. Recruitment is actually on the rise with lots of TV ads run recently for all 3 services.

49 posted on 03/10/2002 9:24:01 AM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.

What's your view on this? Any ideas?

50 posted on 03/10/2002 9:25:20 AM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I doubt Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will be depending on anyone but ourselves. We can only be ever grateful that it's Bush and not Gore.
51 posted on 03/10/2002 10:00:59 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
See post 38, you are missing the joke.
52 posted on 03/10/2002 10:44:56 AM PST by Mahone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
One Minister described those who had questioned Blair's policy of fully backing a US military campaign as 'appeasers'.

The gall of these leftist slime to call those who want action against terrorists, dictators and brutal thugs "appeasers"! The appeasers are those who will leave terrorists, thugs, dictators and brutal murderers in power. Like the British PM Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia, these British MP's are appeasers to the worst elements in the world -- the Saddams, Arafat's and other brutal murderous Nazi slimeballs.

Yes, I said Nazis. Saddam and Arafat both were trained in leadership and ideology by a self-professed Nazi lover who recruited and aided Hitler and encouraged the expansion of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Saddam and Arafat are both clinging to this antiquated genocidal ideology, and as such must be destroyed for the betterment of the free world and the people who suffer under their brutal regimes.

53 posted on 03/10/2002 11:36:59 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
maybe I misread the quote? Ok, if so, that means that the Blair supporter was right in calling the leftists 'appeasers' as I explained.
54 posted on 03/10/2002 11:38:24 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
You sound so sure...explain...is there really a 'cost of admission' so to speak...I like the sound of it...like we're in charge of who gets into the game...does the enemy also play this game BTW?
55 posted on 03/10/2002 1:37:37 PM PST by foreshadowed at waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I cannot bring myself to have faith in our "friends/allies" in this upcoming affair. We must make plans to go it alone, if need be, as our EU friends will all be wringing their hands on the sidelines.

After the slap in the face regarding the steel tariffs, you may have to shove your 'faith' up your arse.

56 posted on 03/10/2002 3:22:57 PM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
Da....

Lets hope your true character is not indicated by your post.

57 posted on 03/10/2002 3:30:59 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
As much as I'd rather have a Tory leader in power, Blair has hung his knackers out on the line in support of the US and in in the face of our so-called EU 'partners'. Then Bush decides to play the protectionist game just because the US steel industry is too inefficient to compete in the world markets.

Will UK troops be made available? Maybe, but don't count on it. As you keep saying, you don't need us anyway.

58 posted on 03/10/2002 3:41:01 PM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: recalcitrant
Blair is already known as 'Tory' Blair in the UK....LOL
59 posted on 03/10/2002 3:43:09 PM PST by dennybabyboy-fitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: big ern
'they better cough up 50,000'

And how do you come to that? If 50,000 UK troops were sent, there would be no soldiers left on British soil, to defend the UK. We aren't blessed with the massive population the US has.

Considering the size of the British army, and how overstretched it is, 25,000 is a good offer.

60 posted on 03/10/2002 3:49:07 PM PST by dennybabyboy-fitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson