<b>2,000 US marines to come under British command </b>

The Guardian ^ | Monday March 3, 2003 | Nicholas Watt and Richard Norton-Taylor

[ladtx]

President Bush is planning to reward Tony Blair for his unswerving support on Iraq by agreeing to place thousands of American marines under the direct command of a senior British officer.

In a highly symbolic move, which has not been seen since the second world war, up to 2,000 marines are expected to be commanded by the British in a joint operation to take the key southern Iraqi city of Basra.

Under plans being drawn up at the US central command in Qatar, the US 15th marine expeditionary unit will join about 4,000 royal marine commandos in an amphibious assault to seize Iraq's only port and protect nearby oil wells.

Britain declined to comment on the plan yesterday because officials refuse to discuss military details ahead of a possible conflict.

But defence officials did not rule out a report in yesterday's Washington Post that a Briton would command an attack on Basra.

"It would be very unusual, extremely unusual," a British defence official said.

[ladtx]

I hope this does not come about, and find it hard to believe. Americans should only be commanded by Americans.

[Arkinsaw]

I hope this does not come about, and find it hard to believe. Americans should only be commanded by Americans.

Depends on who the commander is. If the American was General Custer and the Brit was the Duke of Wellington....

[Moonman62]

Britain declined to comment on the plan yesterday because officials refuse to discuss military details ahead of a possible conflict.

What a shocking revelation. One wonders if the average reporter can get any dumber.

[xzins]

which has not been seen since the second world war

Field Marshall Montgomery I think. He led the northern pincer and wrote quite highly of himself.

Lafayette was personally placed in command of troops by Washington.

The issue is this: WHO IS THE OVERALL COMMANDER? It is Tommy Franks.

If I'm the overall commander, I don't want you mucking up my plans by telling me how I can deploy my forces, whether separate or in alliance.

This is quite different than placing our troops at the behest of the U.N. where the U.N. commander is the overall commander.

[Dog]

This is disinfo......count on it..

[Dog]

Those that know don't talk....

Those that DON'T know talk..

[Dog Gone]

Shhh, you'll spoil it.

[smpc]

Its a joint operation so the job should go to whoever is the better officer.

If it were ONLY American troops led by a Brit then that would be odd.

[rwfromkansas]

Those that scream we are losing our sovereignty because of this should consider that we will have the authority to put them into British control and TAKE THEM OUT. It isn't like they are stuck with the Brits forever now.

[Always Right]

Good. Britain has stood with us all the way on this, we are a team against evil. This isn't like we are putting our troops blindly under the UN command to do with whatever they please. The US is still in charge of this operation.

[Always Right]

Good. Britain has stood with us all the way on this, we are a team against evil. This isn't like we are putting our troops blindly under the UN command to do with whatever they please. The US is still in charge of this operation.

[tomahawk]

As long as it is not Monty.

[TexasNative2000]

Well said.

[colorado tanker]

This article ignores the fact that overall command is in the hands of Gen. Franks. Sovereignty isn't an issue here wigh two old allies integrating commands.

[ladtx]

This whole business of "US troops must always be commanded only by Americans" is horseshit. We should decide on whatever command arrangements make sense, depending on the situation.

It's not "horseshit" as you call it. The article says it is a symbolic move. Wars are not won on symbolic moves they are won on solid tactical and strategic decisions. Sounds like a "feelgood" decision to me. And I guarantee you Marines would rather be commanded by an American.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Absolutely. I also think the Brits are great strategizers and brilliant.

[Arkinsaw]

As long as it is not Monty.

LOL, we wouldn't have to worry about injuries since the battle would be over before they got to it. But I'd still take him over Custer.

[xzins]

Thanks.