Pasdaran
09-01-2007, 02:24 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/31/wbasra231.xml
The Pentagon has said it will deploy troops to Basra if necessary to fill the vacuum left by a British withdrawal.
Brig Gen Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning at the Pentagon, was adamant US forces would not allow any security advances in southern Iraq to be squandered, even if it meant running the risk of weakening American efforts elsewhere in the country.
He said the US command would “reposition forces with the battlefield geography in mind so that they don’t give up gains that they’ve made in different areas, including in Basra and the south”.
He added: “As the UK forces reposition ... all that will be taken into account.”
The uncertainty about how quickly Gordon Brown will take troops out of Iraq has raised tensions with Washington ahead of a progress report by the US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, to be delivered soon to Congress.
In recent weeks US military analysts, former generals and unnamed Bush administration sources have suggested that British forces have failed in Basra and are set to flee just as they are most needed, as their US allies finally appear to be making some headway in improving security and most other members of the coalition have quit.
In response Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have taken the unusual step of writing a rebuttal to those claims on the comment pages of the Washington Post.
“Recent weeks have brought a lot of misplaced criticism of the United Kingdom’s role in southern Iraq. It is time to set the record straight,” they wrote.
“The question some people have asked is: Have British forces failed in Basra? The answer is no.”
They said the goals of setting up democracy and functioning government institutions had been achieved.
“There is no anti-government-insurgency, and very little evidence of an al-Qa’eda presence in southern Iraq,” they wrote, while admitting there was frequent violence between Shia groups.
Britain has 5,500 troops in Iraq - 5,000 at a vast airport complex outside the city and the remainder in an old palace in the city centre.
There are plans to pull the 500 at the Basra Palace out of the country soon.
Most British troops in Iraq are on what the Government describes as “overwatch”, protecting their bases, training Iraqi forces and responding to threats only if attacked.
They also protect US supply routes from Kuwait.
The question facing the Government is when to hand over security for Basra and how quickly to then start reducing the 5,000 troops without upsetting the Americans, or a public weary of the war.
That decision may be made easier if pressure grows on Mr Bush within the US military to reduce the 160,000 US troops serving in Iraq.
The president has heard deep concerns from leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines about strains that are building on the force - and on troops’ families - as a result of lengthy and repeated tours in Iraq.
Two independent assessments of the situation in Iraq already have been previewed this week - the latest finding that Iraq’s national police force is so corrupt and influenced by sectarianism that it should be scrapped and replaced with a smaller force.
An independent commission established by Congress to study Iraq’s security forces will recommend reforming the troubled 25,000-member force, a Pentagon official said.
The sense of isolation around President Bush and the Iraq mission has increased by the prospect of Australia pulling out its 500 troops in Iraq if Labour candidate Kevin Rudd defeats John Howard, a staunch Bush ally, in a forthcoming election.
Mr Bush told Sky News ahead of a visit to Australia that he would ask Mr Rudd to keep troops in Iraq and 'consider conditions on the ground’.
“What matters is success. And I believe we can be successful,’ he said.
The Pentagon has said it will deploy troops to Basra if necessary to fill the vacuum left by a British withdrawal.
Brig Gen Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning at the Pentagon, was adamant US forces would not allow any security advances in southern Iraq to be squandered, even if it meant running the risk of weakening American efforts elsewhere in the country.
He said the US command would “reposition forces with the battlefield geography in mind so that they don’t give up gains that they’ve made in different areas, including in Basra and the south”.
He added: “As the UK forces reposition ... all that will be taken into account.”
The uncertainty about how quickly Gordon Brown will take troops out of Iraq has raised tensions with Washington ahead of a progress report by the US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, to be delivered soon to Congress.
In recent weeks US military analysts, former generals and unnamed Bush administration sources have suggested that British forces have failed in Basra and are set to flee just as they are most needed, as their US allies finally appear to be making some headway in improving security and most other members of the coalition have quit.
In response Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have taken the unusual step of writing a rebuttal to those claims on the comment pages of the Washington Post.
“Recent weeks have brought a lot of misplaced criticism of the United Kingdom’s role in southern Iraq. It is time to set the record straight,” they wrote.
“The question some people have asked is: Have British forces failed in Basra? The answer is no.”
They said the goals of setting up democracy and functioning government institutions had been achieved.
“There is no anti-government-insurgency, and very little evidence of an al-Qa’eda presence in southern Iraq,” they wrote, while admitting there was frequent violence between Shia groups.
Britain has 5,500 troops in Iraq - 5,000 at a vast airport complex outside the city and the remainder in an old palace in the city centre.
There are plans to pull the 500 at the Basra Palace out of the country soon.
Most British troops in Iraq are on what the Government describes as “overwatch”, protecting their bases, training Iraqi forces and responding to threats only if attacked.
They also protect US supply routes from Kuwait.
The question facing the Government is when to hand over security for Basra and how quickly to then start reducing the 5,000 troops without upsetting the Americans, or a public weary of the war.
That decision may be made easier if pressure grows on Mr Bush within the US military to reduce the 160,000 US troops serving in Iraq.
The president has heard deep concerns from leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines about strains that are building on the force - and on troops’ families - as a result of lengthy and repeated tours in Iraq.
Two independent assessments of the situation in Iraq already have been previewed this week - the latest finding that Iraq’s national police force is so corrupt and influenced by sectarianism that it should be scrapped and replaced with a smaller force.
An independent commission established by Congress to study Iraq’s security forces will recommend reforming the troubled 25,000-member force, a Pentagon official said.
The sense of isolation around President Bush and the Iraq mission has increased by the prospect of Australia pulling out its 500 troops in Iraq if Labour candidate Kevin Rudd defeats John Howard, a staunch Bush ally, in a forthcoming election.
Mr Bush told Sky News ahead of a visit to Australia that he would ask Mr Rudd to keep troops in Iraq and 'consider conditions on the ground’.
“What matters is success. And I believe we can be successful,’ he said.