LONDON — The British government said yesterday that it would be failing an important ally if it refused to redeploy British troops closer to Baghdad to free up American soldiers for anti-insurgent operations.
Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said American military commanders had asked Britain to reposition a small number of soldiers, now stationed in southern Iraq, to the U.S.-controlled sector farther north.
“The specific reason is to free American forces to conduct extra operations in those places like Fallujah, where terrorists are well-established and are attacking coalition forces, but also innocent Iraqi civilians,” Mr. Hoon said.
He said military leaders are assessing whether to meet the request and would send a reconnaissance team to the undisclosed area today. Britain’s chief of defense staff would make a recommendation later this week, he added.
Mr. Hoon did not say how many troops might be redeployed. But military sources have said that if the request was granted, Britain’s reserve regiment, the 650-strong First Battalion Black Watch, which is stationed near the southern port city of Basra, would be the obvious choice to move.
Facing a barrage of hostile questions from lawmakers reluctant to see British troops sent into the more volatile U.S.-controlled sector, Mr. Hoon said the government did not want to let Washington down.
“We cannot go into a coalition and then simply cross our fingers and say there are certain circumstances in which we will not participate,” Mr. Hoon said.
“Were we to refuse the request, I can see that would be an issue that would go to the heart of our relationship, not only with the U.S., but with other members of that alliance.”
One lawmaker asked what penalties Britain might incur if it refused the request.
“There will be no penalty, but we will have failed in our duty as an ally and as a country that has closely supported the United States,” he responded.
Mr. Hoon rejected accusations by some lawmakers that any redeployment would be a political gesture designed to bolster President Bush ahead of presidential elections on Nov. 2.
“I want to make clear that the request is a military request,” Mr. Hoon said.
He stressed that the United States, contrary to media reports, had not asked for British soldiers to be sent to Baghdad or Fallujah.
Britain has about 9,000 troops in Iraq, operating in the relatively peaceful area around Basra. Sending British soldiers into the U.S.-controlled sector, where there are more attacks by insurgents, carries a risk of higher casualties and would be politically sensitive for Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Some lawmakers are opposed to British troops coming under U.S. command, believing that might put them under a greater threat of attack. Many think that three decades of Irish Republican Army violence in Northern Ireland have given British soldiers experience in urban patrolling and helped them develop both a well-honed instinct for ambushes and a sense of restraint. Critics suggest that the U.S. military lacks such experience and has a tendency to overreact.
“Is it really possible for them to retain that restraint if they are deployed to a U.S. sector which has been policed for over a year by U.S. forces which have not been showing the same level of restraint?” asked Labor lawmaker Robin Cook, who quit the Cabinet in opposition to the war in Iraq.
Mr. Hoon said it was sometimes unfair to compare British troops with U.S. troops, who have faced a more intense threat from insurgents in and around Baghdad.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.