http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3748708.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3749058.stm

Don't know about anyone else, but after seeing what happened in Fallujah, I for one would rather that orders for British soldiers didn't come from anywhere near the Pentagon.

[ 10-16-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Though it's not uncommon for troops in a coalition to serve under the command of a foreigner, considering the unpopularity of the 'Telic' campaign in Iraq, it would not be a wise move IMO. My Nephew is in Basra (Royal engineers 22 reg, 5 Field Squadron ) and I would like him to keep a low profile as possible.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Personally I cannot stand the Idea of US troops under the command of another nation, so I can see no reason why the Brits should accept that same condition. Why can they not remain under British command?
</font>

Some Athenian fellows are laughing right now...But it's not a 'ha-ha' laughter, it's a nervous defense mechanism, at realising in bleak proportion just how damn circular man's nature is...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the British authorities have failed to learn the basic lesson from the Delian League incidents...

This certainly refutes Kerry's many assertions, in the run up to the election, that the US is going it alone in Iraq.

Perhaps one of you that has been in the military can tell me why, with 130,000 troops in Iraq the US military need to move 650 Brits in to support them.

They will remain under British command BTW and will be relieved within 30 days.

So that's 30 days in which to launch an assault on Fallujah and defeat the insurgents.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Donut, It depends on exactly what those British troops do. The military may seem homogenous from the outside, but there are many thousands of "Specialty" fields of training in which it takes a particular person, or groups of people to do a particular job.....not everyone is trained in forward observation and spotting for artillery for example.

Basicly the US military is still geared for taking on large organized armies and less ready to face small unit actions and urban warfare. Im betting they need the Brits to fill a gap where there are not enough specially trained US soldiers available in the region.


But that is just a guess.....you know, Iraq is not a small place and not all 130,000 US troops are available everywhere.
</font>

And if all else fails, there's always "operation get behind the darkies". :D