Downing Street has confirmed that 850 British soldiers from the
Black Watch regiment will be moved from southern Iraq to the Babil
province, south of Baghdad.
The redeployment follows a request from U.S. commanders in Iraq for
British forces to play a support role for American forces about to
launch a major offensive to retake the insurgent-held city of
Fallujah. The British troops will remain under the operational
command of British generals but will coordinate their activity with
the U.S. chain of command in the region.The redeployment is a
reflection of the great esteem in which British troops are held and
the continuing strength of the Anglo-U.S. special relationship.
The Controversy
The Government's decision to redeploy British soldiers to the
Baghdad area has sparked a major political controversy in Britain.
The move has been condemned by the leadership of Britain's third
largest party, the Liberal Democrats, as well as by the left wing
of the ruling Labour Party.
Charles Kennedy, leader of the
Liberal Democrats, warned against Britain "allowing itself to be
sucked further into the mire in Iraq." He was joined in his
condemnation of the redeployment by Robin Cook, former foreign
secretary and an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. In an article
for the Guardian newspaper, Cook spoke of
…the suspicion that we
sent a third of the British army into Iraq not in pursuit of our
own national interests but in support of the White House's
political agenda. This latest twist to the tale confirms the
perception that it is Washington that calls the shots and Britain
that jumps to attention. It is equally obvious that the request was
the product of U.S. politics.
Many of Cook's backbench
colleagues in the Labour Party have echoed his concerns; indeed, 45
of them have called for a Commons vote on the
redeployment.
Why
Redeploy
Robin Cook's claim that the U.S. request to move British forces
to the Sunni Triangle has more to do with the U.S. presidential
election than with military necessity is not only preposterous but
also deeply insulting to British forces in Iraq. The timing of the
redeployment has everything to do with the January elections in
Iraq, and nothing to do with the U.S. elections on November 2nd. Significantly, the matter of
British troops being moved closer to Baghdad has not even
registered as an issue in the American presidential race, despite
the efforts of Mr. Cook and other antiwar MPs to present British
Prime Minister Tony Blair as a subservient 'poodle' of President
Bush.
The key reason for the redeployment of British forces is to free
up U.S. Marine divisions for offensive operations against
terrorists operating in Fallujah and surrounding Sunni-dominated
cities in the region around Baghdad. Key goals of the U.S.
operations will be the capture or elimination of Jordanian
terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the destruction of the Tawhid
wal-Jihad group which he heads. Al-Zarqawi has pledged his
allegiance to Osama bin Laden and is responsible for the brutal
kidnapping and murder of British hostage Kenneth Bigley, as well as
numerous Western and Iraqi hostages. Al-Zarqawi and his followers
are also responsible for a large number of suicide attacks in the
Baghdad region and have claimed responsibility for the massacre of
50 Iraqi army recruits in northeastern Iraq.
In recent months, Al-Zarqawi's base, Fallujah, has become a mass
transit camp and command center for hundreds, even thousands, of
militants from across the Arab world, including Syria, Jordan, and
Saudi Arabia. Fallujah and its satellite towns are staging posts
for terrorist activity across the Sunni areas of Iraq. Unless they
are retaken, it will be impossible for the scourge of terrorism to
be defeated in the country. The restoration of the rule of law in
cities such as Fallujah is essential if national elections are to
be held in Iraq in January.
The suggestion that British troops are being used as "political
pawns", as some Members of
Parliament have alleged, does a huge disservice to the sacrifice,
bravery, and professionalism of the British Army in Iraq. British
soldiers are being sent to the most dangerous part of the country
not as part of a "tawdry political deal" but because they have a
track record of being among the best soldiers in the world.
The Black Watch has an
illustrious reputation and was one of the greatest regiments in the
history of the British Empire, seeing service in India, the Crimea,
Burma, Egypt, South Africa, and West Africa. Its soldiers have won
14 Victoria Crosses and have fought bravely in many of the most
important battles of the past two hundred years, from Waterloo in
1815 to the D-Day landings in 1944. More recently, the
Black Watch played a key role in freeing the city of Basra from
Baathist tyranny in 2003.
The British Contribution
Great Britain made an outstanding contribution to the liberation
of Iraq, sending 46,000 military personnel to the Gulf as part of
the U.S.-led coalition-roughly a third of the country's armed
forces. Over 8,000 British troops remain in Iraq, and British
forces have maintained peace and security in the southern third of
the country with outstanding success. They have performed a
critically important role in laying the foundations of democracy in
the Shia-dominated south, and the British sector of Iraq has been a
role model for much of the country.
The British record in Iraq is
one of which the British nation should be hugely proud, and the
redeployment of British forces to the Baghdad area is a reflection
of the great esteem in which the British Army is held. The
repositioning of British forces alongside their American
counterparts is an important reaffirmation of the Anglo-U.S.
special relationship and the common cause in which Britain and
America are joined: winning the war on terror.
Nile
Gardiner, Ph.D., is Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy at the
Heritage Foundation.