| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| 2,000 US marines to come under British command |
| 2003-03-03 |
| President Bush is planning to reward Tony Blair for his unswerving support on Iraq by agreeing to place thousands of American marines under the direct command of a senior British officer. In a highly symbolic move, which has not been seen since the second world war, up to 2,000 marines are expected to be commanded by the British in a joint operation to take the key southern Iraqi city of Basra. This isn't a symbolic move, it's an operational one. The Brit commander is tasked to do a job, and he's being given the resources to do it. Under plans being drawn up at the US central command in Qatar, the US 15th marine expeditionary unit will join about 4,000 royal marine commandos in an amphibious assault to seize Iraq's only port and protect nearby oil wells. Britain declined to comment on the plan yesterday because officials refuse to discuss military details ahead of a possible conflict. But defence officials did not rule out a report in yesterday's Washington Post that a Briton would command an attack on Basra. "It would be very unusual, extremely unusual," a British defence official said. "Basil, we have another pesky reporter here." "Blimey, what now, Toby?" "He wants to know about those yank marines." "Tell him that 'it's unusual.'" "Right-o. Why not just tell him, 'sod off?'" "We are, Basil, we are. But this way hizzoner won't even know it." Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, who is well connected in Washington, said that such a move would be highly symbolic. "It would be a matter of very considerable political significance for the United States to place a substantial number of its forces under the operational command of a senior British officer," he said. "It would be seen as some thing of a reward for Tony Blair and the British for their support." Once again, boys, it's an operational move. Washington is usually reluctant to place its troops under foreign control because the US constitution stipulates that ultimate command must always rest with the president in his role as commander in chief. The convention would not be breached in this case because the British officer would fall under the command of US general Tommy Franks, who will command the air and land attack on Iraq from his base in Qatar. Handing the British a key role in capturing Basra, which would allow the US to concentrate on capturing Baghdad, is likely to prove a mixed blessing for the prime minister. It would strengthen the hand of critics who fear that Britain will not be able to pull the plug on an invasion of Iraq. Not that Tony has any intention at all of pulling the plug. But such a role would also strengthen Mr Blair's hand against critics, led by the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who have raised doubts about allowing British forces to fall under US command. Even Mr Kennedy was forced to laugh last week when the former Tory leader William Hague replied that "British and American forces have been familiar with a shared chain of command since D-day in 1944 and before". They were laughing at you, not with you, Mr. Kennedy. But it is not since the days of Field Marshal Montgomery that so many American troops have been commanded by the British. As deputy commander of allied forces in Europe under General Eisenhower, Montgomery commanded thousands of American soldiers in Europe in the last years of the war. But we're not holding Monty against the Brits :-) The 15th marine expeditionary unit, described as America's "premier amphibious force", fought in Afghanistan. Based in California, it arrived in Kuwait last month. Tick, tick, tick. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #2 Read closely. The Lib Dems are saying what a support this is for Tony Blair. How did they vote in the Parliamentary "Crisis?" Against HMG? |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-03-03 17:24:54 |
| #1 Exactly. Operational command of the marine units(s) is British, but the Marines have their own officers. They just take ops orders from the Brits. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-03 10:16:56 |