A senior British defence source in the Middle East dismissed the affair as a "storm in a teacup". Anglo-American planning for possible war continued unabated, he said.
Posted on 03/12/2003 5:04:44 PM PST by MadIvan
British commanders insisted yesterday that Britain's 45,000 troops would play a full role in any invasion of Iraq, firmly rejecting suggestions by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, that the Americans might have to invade alone.
|
A senior British defence source in the Middle East dismissed the affair as a "storm in a teacup". Anglo-American planning for possible war continued unabated, he said. |
Attempts to find a compromise at the UN Security Council were not a sign that Britain's troops might pull out of the main invasion.
It would be extremely difficult to change allied battle plans, which depended heavily on the use of British forces, at the last minute, sources said. It would take longer to make new plans than to wait for the British compromise.
The British are already heavily involved in a number of operations that are under way, providing capabilities that in many cases the United States cannot match.
The SAS is fully integrated into the US Combined Joint Special Operations Force that is operating in and out of western and southern Iraq, carrying out reconnaissance ahead of an invasion.
RAF aircrew who have been patrolling the no-fly zones since 1991 have taken a full part in the escalation of the patrols into what since September has been a de facto air war, destroying Iraqi air defences and communications links.
RAF support aircraft such as the R1 Nimrod signals intelligence aircraft and the TriStar and VC10 tanker planes also play a vital role.
Royal Navy minesweepers, whose capability the US navy does not possess, have also been operating in the northern Gulf for several months.
But more crucially as far as the invasion plans are concerned, the British ground forces are firmly embedded in the force that Gen Tommy Franks will send into Iraq.
The Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade are so tightly integrated into the plan that more than 2,000 US Marines will come under the command of Brig Jim Dutton, the brigade's commander.
They are expected to take the Tigris-Euphrates delta area, including the key southern city of Basra and the main Iraqi port at Umm Qasr, which will be crucial to the allied supply operation.
The heavy power of the 116 Challenger 2 tanks of 7th Armoured Brigade under Brig Graham Binns will play a key role in smashing through any initial Iraqi army defences.
The brigade has been massively expanded to around 15,000 men for a key role in the south, where they are expected to come up against the Iraqi 6th Armoured Division, based north of Basra.
The role of the other main British fighting force, 16 Air Assault Brigade, is less clear, with some reports saying it will be used in an airborne assault aimed at securing oilfields south-west of Baghdad.
But delays in the deployment of troops into northern Iraq caused by Ankara's refusal to allow US troops to be based in Turkey could lead to it being diverted north with the US 101st Airborne Division.
Alternatively, the brigade might be held back as a powerful, mobile force that could be sent to reinforce any allied force that encounters heavy resistance.
Regards, Ivan
Media here have gone into full hysterical mode. I am not paying them any more attention until the war starts.
"The members of the Security Council are now faced with a grave choice," Annan said in The Hague on Monday.
"If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," he said.
And in a recent discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations, Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, agreed. She said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a US attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law.
"There's no question that many, many other countries - the majority of other countries and certainly many of our European allies - will not see a unilateral American-led attack as explicitly authorised by the Security Council," she said.
It's much easier on the nerves, and we will go when we go, so why fret? It's not like PM Blair and President Bush are pouring over our posts to get tips! LOL!
So who cares?
Tony has been a true friend, and I'm sure the Bush administration doesn't want him to lose his position over this. The Brits should recognize this as the ultimate compliment from Rumsfeld.
When the UN gets an army....we worry....until then....he can twist in the wind!!
Thank you for that. I have been hearing that Tony Blair may be in trouble. I am embarrassed by my ignorance but I must ask; can Labor call for a no confidence vote against their own guy? And if they can would they? How likely is this?
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.