Blair shelves plans to send more troops to Iraq

1.00pm - By COLIN BROWN and KIM SENGUPTA


Tony Blair has shelved plans to send more than 3,000 British troops to Iraq to deal with the expected upsurge in violence after the hand-over of power to the interim Iraq authority.

The Government has delayed a response to a fresh US request for Britain to send more troops to fill gaps left by the withdrawal of soldiers by Spain. They were pulled out after the fall of the Spanish government in the wake of the Madrid bombings.

British commanders are extremely reluctant to send British troops to more dangerous areas, such as Najaf, occupied by the Spanish forces. Ministers are delaying a decision until a comprehensive plan for the withdrawal of coalition forces next year is produced at the end of this month.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "Let's keep our fingers crossed that the new Iraqi Government is able to establish its moral, political and security authority more quickly than all of us might have anticipated. In which case fewer troops will be needed for less time."

Meanwhile, the Government is preparing to switch a headquarters unit - the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) - destined for Iraq to Afghanistan. It would place British forces in a pivotal position in efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan.

One of the main reasons behind the change in policy is the acceptance that sending large scale reinforcements to Iraq would be highly unpopular in Britain. The same course in Afghanistan, it is held, can be presented as an overwhelmingly humanitarian mission for a shattered land.

The first announcement of British deployment to Afghanistan is expected to come on the highly politically charged week beginning 12 July.

The same week will see Chancellor Gordon Brown's spending review, the publication of the Butler Report into Iraq intelligence, and two critical by-elections.

According to senior defence sources the ultimate aim is to install Nato's ARRC unit in Kabul under the command of the Lieutenant General Sir Richard Dannatt. Significantly, until just three weeks ago, the British-led force, based in Germany, was earmarked for Iraq. The ARRC's deployment to Afghanistan, however, is unlikely in the near future.

Before that several hundred troops, the numbers yet to be decided, are expected to be sent to Afghanistan in time for the country's elections in September.

Ministers are also said to believe that European partners who have refused to be involved in Iraq will be willing to help further in Afghanistan. In particular Spain, which withdrew its contingent from Iraq following the election of a new government, is likely to send troops.

At its Istanbul summit Nato agreed to buttress its International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) from 6,500 to 10,000. Some of the extra forces will form Provincial Reconstruction Teams which are operating in a number of cities outside the capital. These, however, are expected to be strengthened with larger numbers of combat troops.

One plan under consideration is for British troops to join 20,000 US forces operating in southern and eastern Afghanistan fighting remnants of al Qaeda and Taleban, and carrying out sporadic raids across the Pakistani border hunting Osama bin Laden.

At present only British special forces are involved in the border operations. But the sending of larger numbers of regular troops will free US forces for operations in Iraq.

Meanwhile the Commons Defence Committee warned that government plans to cut back on the armed forces could turn out to be dangerous. The MP's warned, in a report, that depending on high-tech warfare while jettisoning numbers of troops, tanks, warships and aircraft is self-defeating. It also pointed out that over-stretching of the forces in overseas operations means they could struggle to cope with a major terrorist campaign in Britain.

Labour MP Bruce George, the committee chairman, said " If terrorists decide not to play by our rules, then we will need forces that can react quickly to threats abroad and at home. This will only be possible if troops are properly trained to deal with new demands placed on them. We are not convinced the MoD is on top of the problem.

"Troops, both regulars and reserves, are overstretched. Cutting the number of boots on the ground, ships or aircraft are not sensible options, particularly when we have no guarantee that the new equipment which is meant to replace them will arrive on time or perform as planned."

The committee also strongly criticised ministers and military commanders for failing to prevent human rights abuses by Coalition forces in Iraq.

"The command chain needs to address the implications of the actions of the few more comprehensively than it has done to date - to show that every possible step has been taken to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future and such 'effects' are not repeated. The fact that similar incidents occurred among Coalition forces in Afghanistan before Iraq, and in Somalia before that, should have warned senior military and civilian leaders as to the dangers."


- INDEPENDENT

Herald Feature: Iraq