US wants British 'surge' in Basra

US wants British 'surge' in Basra

www.defensenews.com

LONDON - The U.S. plans to urge Britain to launch a "surge" in Basra to combat increasing violence in the southern Iraqi region, the Sunday Mirror newspaper reported.

Britain, which has around 4,100 troops in Iraq, transferred control to Iraqi forces in December last year but could now be asked to step up its role again amid top-level concern about the situation, the paper said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a real dilemma, given how anti-war feelings have increased in the UK. Whilst I think Basra could probably benefit from a 'surge', I don't think it'll happen for two reasons:

1) Brown would risk reopening a wound that he thought he'd closed by increasing British forces in Iraq. He has already taken flak for delaying the withdrawal of 1,500 troops by the spring.

2) The two Democratic candidates have both said they want US forces to withdraw... and if the Americans leave, the British will have no choice but to go too. With the race for the White House inching ever closer to its conclusion in November, the UK will be wary of making a big commitment just in case it turns out to be a waste of time. Some may see it as a ploy to keep the UK involved in Iraq for longer, too.

Hence, a surge would have to take place with American and Iraqi forces too - the British public are too big an obstacle for a solely British surge to take place.

www.defensenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Ste2652


unlike the US britain doesnt have **** loads of people ready to leap into a war zone with the sound of war.

so how is Brown suppose to do this? send back people who already done a tour?
i thought we had shortage in the forces.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by bodrul]