By Peter Graff
London - Fear that ruthless United States tactics could lead to disaster in Iraq has caused Washington's most loyal ally Britain to waver in its support as never before.
In public, Prime Minister Tony Blair remains as staunch a supporter as ever, defending the performance of US troops on the ground at the flashpoints of Fallujah and Najaf.
But the country's military and diplomatic establishment, which overcame reservations last year to back the decision to go to war, has begun openly distancing itself from harsh US military tactics it increasingly fears could backfire.
| 'The matter is kept under constant review' |
More than a month after it became clear that Spanish soldiers were withdrawing from Iraq, Britain has yet to commit to sending more troops to take the Spaniards' place.
"The core of the establishment around Tony Blair wants to stand with (US President) George Bush, having committed themselves. But they are having real problems," said Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies.
Continues Below ↓
Washington has not hidden the fact that it wants British troops to patrol the Shi'a flashpoint of Najaf, which the Spaniards evacuated. But Britain has been more opaque than usual, saying only that it is "in talks with its coalition partners".
Asked about it again on Thursday, Blair's spokesperson said: "The only thing I am going to say is that the matter is kept under constant review".
Said Heyman: "If it was just a simple matter of supporting your ally, those 2 000 troops would have been on the planes by now."
| 'You have to lose an empire to understand how to do peacekeeping' |
Britain's military prides itself on its peacekeeping and counter-insurgency skills, learned over years of colonial conflicts.
"You have to lose an empire to understand how to do peacekeeping," said British defence analyst Paul Beaver. "I think there's despair at the way the Americans go about peacekeeping. The Americans are not good at it."
So far, disquiet among serving British commanders has mostly been in the form of oblique hints that they would prefer to see American troops act with more restraint.
The chief of the general staff, Sir Mike Jackson, said last week it was a "fact of life" that "the British approach to post-conflict (situations) is doctrinally different to the US"
"We must be able to fight with the Americans but that does not mean we must fight as the Americans," he said.
But the hints are becoming more obvious.
Worries among the diplomatic corps burst into the open this week when 52 former senior British diplomats sent a letter to a news agency saying Blair should either persuade Bush to change course or abandon a policy "doomed to failure".
"Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Fallujah, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition," they wrote.
The left-leaning Guardian newspaper quoted an anonymous government source on Thursday as saying: "The senior British military are strongly opposed to taking over the Spanish areas of command, or sending further troops."
Britain is still clearly hoping to influence US tactics. It has dispatched Major General John McColl - who set up a highly successful international peace force in Afghanistan in 2001 - to be the deputy to the US commander in Baghdad.
But his clout is likely to be limited unless Britain commits more troops on the ground.
If Britain decides to replace the Spaniards, it would amount to a major increase in its responsibilities. Britain would probably take command of the entire south-central area, now patrolled by a 15-nation Polish-led division of which the Spanish were one part.
But if Britain refuses to send more troops, its role will be more marginal than ever, as US forces expand their reach into the Shi'a south to fill the vacuum.
With the decision still on hold, British commanders can be expected to nudge their American counterparts in private, trying to avoid taking their differences into the open.
"One of the things Americans always get wrong with us is they think we say things directly, like they do," said Heyman.
"You wont find a British military officer saying to the Americans: 'this is not how you do it, this is how you do it'. But you will find a British officer saying: 'I am worried about the eventual outcome of this campaign.'"
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
