One-quarter of British army sent for war vs. Iraq

Submitted by Reverend Chuck0:

One-quarter of British army sent for war vs. Iraq

By Julie Hyland

23 January 2003

One-quarter of Britain's armed forces are being moved to the Gulf in
preparation for war against Iraq, the Blair government announced Monday,
January 20.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told parliament that up to 31,000 military
personnel, including 29,000 ground troops, are to be deployed to the region
in the next weeks.

Although the government had previously made clear its intention to join a
US-led war against Iraq, the scale of its military commitment far exceeds
expectations, and is larger than that mobilised by the UK during the 1991
Gulf War. Some 8,000 UK personnel, part of a naval task force led by HMS Ark
Royal, are already on their way to the region to join US forces.

The "deployment of forces on this scale is no ordinary measure," Hoon told
MPs, but they would provide "the right group of forces for the sort of tasks
that may be necessary."

The additional forces include the 7th Armoured Brigade (the Desert Rats),
the 4th Armoured Brigade and the 1st (UK) Armoured Division headquarters,
and paratroopers from the 16 Air Assault Brigade. These are to be stationed
at bases in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, with the Royal Navy in the
Gulf of Bahrain, and possibly Qatar. Some 120 Challenger tanks, made ready
for desert conditions to the cost of £100 million, as well as 150 armoured
personnel carriers, are also being readied for transportation.

The scale of the commitment is in line with demands from Britain's military
leaders, many of whom had previously expressed misgivings over US war plans,
fearing they would destabilise the entire Middle East. According to reports,
Britain's military chiefs had insisted with the government that if they were
to participate in such a venture alongside the US, a larger force was
required, so as to ensure some degree of independence and control over
events.

Hoon cynically claimed that the deployment did not mean war was inevitable.
It was simply aimed at "building up pressure" on Iraq, he declared. "A
decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent
or inevitable," he said.

In reality the military buildup is a clear indication that Britain and the
US are determined to go to war.

Plans for the military occupation of the country-which would be the largest
since the takeover of Japan and Germany in 1945-are well advanced. The Daily
Mirror reported that British military strategists have been told a
full-scale invasion force must be in place by February 15. Military sources
told the newspaper that the plan is to conduct 14 days of intensive air
bombardment against the country, followed by a two-pronged attack by land
and sea. From Kuwait a massive invasion force would "'ring fence' oil
installations in the southern tip of Iraq and in the south west and north
east. Once Basra is isolated and the oilfields secured, the US would push
towards Baghdad," the Mirror said.

Such a scenario was given additional weight by the US announcement-just
hours after Hoon's statement to parliament-that it was sending a further
37,000 personnel to the Gulf, in addition to the 150,000 it had previously
committed. Already hundreds of warplanes and five nuclear-powered "super
dreadnoughts," each more than 1,100 feet long and capable of carrying
70-plus aircraft and more than 10,000 marines, are in the region.

There is a flagrantly provocative character to the US/UK announcements,
which came just days before United Nations weapons inspectors are due to
make their first report on Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" on
January 27. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said previously that
the team requires more time to complete its investigations and has admitted
that it has found no evidence that Iraq is stockpiling weapons.

But the US has made it clear that no extra time will be forthcoming, and
that a "smoking gun" is not required to justify attacking Iraq. Such
statements, coupled with the scale and speed of the military buildup now
underway in the Gulf, have raised fears in European capitals that America
intends to use the January 27 deadline to trigger war, and present other
countries with a fait accompli.

Certainly the announcement of extra troops came just hours after a meeting
of the United Nations Security Council had exposed sharp differences amongst
its members over the future course of action, with Germany and France making
clear their opposition to any military assault on Iraq not explicitly
sanctioned by the UN.

Germany's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told the meeting that his
government could not support military action taken without UN approval
because, "in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional
stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight
against... murderous terrorism."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin indicated that France would
use its veto on the Security Council to block any military action whilst UN
weapons inspectors continued their investigation of Iraq's military
capabilities. "We believe that, today, nothing justifies military action,"
de Villepin stated.

Their concerns were dismissed by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, who
told the meeting that the UN must not be scared into "impotence" and
abdicate its responsibility "to disarm" Iraq. He was backed by British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who argued that the US/UK had all the
authorisation required for a military attack-pointing to paragraph 13 of the
Security Council's Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, which
stipulates that Iraq faces "serious consequences" if it is considered to
have breached UN resolutions.

For the past months Prime Minister Tony Blair has sought to portray himself
as a mediator between Europe and America over preparations for war against
Iraq-keeping the former on line, and the latter in check. With the Bush
administration making clear it will not be subject to any form of
international control, however, and that it will go to war in the near
future regardless of the consequences, he has decided to jump aboard the US
juggernaut.

It is a high-risk gamble. Whilst the prime minister has the support of the
Conservative opposition and much of the media, his war mongering is at odds
with the vast majority of the British population-81 percent of whom are
opposed to a unilateral attack on Iraq. War, especially one taken in
defiance of UN protocol, will immediately expose just how isolated Blair
really is.

At the same time, the government is involved in a confrontation with the
country's 50,000 plus firefighters, who embarked on their third strike on
Monday. The 24-hour strike is to be followed by two further 48-hour
stoppages on January 28 and February 1 in pursuit of the firefighters demand
for a pay rise to bring their salaries up to £30,000 per annum.

Blair has dismissed the pay claim and insisted that any wage rise is
dependent on thousands of job cuts and the closure of stations. But with
19,000 soldiers being used to provide emergency fire cover during the
strike, the Conservatives, the media and sections of the military are
demanding that Blair outlaw the dispute and utilize police to break picket
lines.

Whatever the exact course of events, the Blair government has committed
itself to fighting a war on two fronts-against the Iraqi people overseas and
the working class at home.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/uk-j23.shtml