| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| U.K may ask Australia to take over its Iraq military role |
| 2005-07-10 |
| BRITAIN could urge Australia to take over its military command role in southern Iraq as it prepares to redeploy troops to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. John Howard and Tony Blair will discuss the future British and Australian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan when they meet in London later this month. Cabinet's national security committee is tomorrow expected to consider options for a fresh Australian troop commitment to Afghanistan on top of the defence force's existing role in Iraq. "It's ... necessary to make sure that the gains of the past several years are not lost. If there's a way in which we can help, we'll consider doing that," the Prime Minister told the Nine Network yesterday. Britain will take over command of the NATO forces based in Afghanistan later this year, and is keen to phase down its 8000-strong contingent in southern Iraq by early 2006. One option under consideration, according to the London Sunday Times, is for Australia to take over the running of the divisional headquarters in southern Iraq, based in Basra. This could involve an extra 200 to 300 Australian defence personnel in Iraq on top of the 450-strong al-Muthanna deployment and the existing embassy security and coalition forces headquarters detachments in Baghdad. The Blair Government is preparing to boost its troop numbers in Afghanistan to well over 1000 as Britain takes on a wider security role amid a resurgence of attacks by Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday Times report said Washington was keen for Canberra to take over the command role in southern Iraq should Britain relinquish it. Australia's al-Muthanna contingent provides security for Japanese army engineers working in the province. It also helps train the Iraqi defence force. Australian defence sources say a headquarters command role for the force would be "feasible" given the relatively calm security situation in southern Iraq. "Whether the Government would have the balls to do it is another question," observed one source. British and other coalition forces have suffered few casualties in the south in recent months compared with the continuing attacks on US and Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad. But Canberra sources said they were not aware of any new request by British defence officials. "There has been no inter-government discussion let alone negotiation of such a prospect," Defence Minister Robert Hill said. The developments came as a British Defence Ministry planning document leaked to the Mail on Sunday added weight to suggestions that Washington and London planned to slash their Iraq troop commitments. The leaked report said Washington hoped to hand over control of security to Iraqi forces in 14 out of Iraq's 18 provinces by early next year, cutting US-led troop levels to 66,000 from 176,000. Britain for its part had a plan to cut its 8500-strong contingent to about 3000. The document - entitled Options for Future UK Force Posture in Iraq, and marked "Secret: UK eyes only" - said London would need to reach decisions later this year on troop levels. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #1 Options for Future And it is possible that I might suddenly find myself at the weight and energy level of my wedding day. But the probability isn't high, and it really doesn't count as news until it happens. I do believe the correct term for such idiots is "wankers," yes? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-10 22:40 |