British military planners may be coming to the conclusion that the only way out of Iraq is to plunge in deeper, in the hope of averting disaster brought on by what they see as dangerous American missteps.
A looming decision on whether Britain will send a small contingent of troops to replace withdrawing Spaniards could lead to a major shift in the balance of power in Iraq, with London eventually assuming control of the entire Shia south.
But it would amount to a major gamble for Prime Minister Tony Blair, caught between the prospect of plunging his country deeper into a costly and unpopular occupation, or watching it unravel if Washington's heavy-handed tactics backfire.
"Does Britain want to be sucked even deeper into this crisis? On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Brits are very worried about what the Americans could do," said Tim Ripley, a defence analyst at Lancaster University.
"There is a great, great worry about the whole thing completely unravelling if there was a bloodbath... And the idea that they could take it over and be responsible for the Shias - yes, it's a bigger commitment, but it might be safer."
As Washington's main ally, Britain bore a far greater share of the burden of invading Iraq last year than it has of occupying the country since.
At its peak during the war to oust Saddam Hussein, Britain's force of some 45,000 troops - its largest deployment in 50 years - was about a sixth the size of the US invasion force. Today, Britain's 7,500 troops patrolling Basra are little more than a 20th the size of the US presence.
Much of that slack was taken up by other allies, including Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Salvadorans and others, who together outnumber British forces two-to-one.
That has unquestionably cost Britain clout in Baghdad.
Britain patrols Basra, Iraq's comparatively quiet second city in the south, while a Polish-led international force patrols the "south central" zone - the Shia heartland south of the capital.
But Spain's withdrawal and an uprising by Shia militia have led to worries about the long term viability of the 15-nation Polish-led force.
"That Polish multinational division is slowly unravelling," said Ripley. "The Spanish were part of it. Some of the others who were part of it are either pulling out or thinking of pulling out, or have proved to be militarily ineffective."
Britain is discussing sending troops to replace 1,300 Spaniards withdrawing from the Polish-led division. But experts expect that sooner or later London would probably take over command of the Polish division as other allies peel away.
The Times newspaper has discussed a possible plan to send over a British-run Nato divisional headquarters from Europe.
Along with Basra, that would give Britain responsibility for the entire Shi'ite-dominated southern half of Iraq, giving London a more substantial role in what has so far been effectively a US-run occupation.
"Together that's half the country. It's where the British can be most effective," said Colonel Christopher Langton, head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
"I think the British will feel that if they get into the central-south they are going to have more influence. The mood here at the moment is that we've got this problem, we've got to look at ways of solving it."
There are already signs of such a shift, most notably the arrival in Baghdad two weeks ago of British Major General John McColl, who set up and commanded a British-led peace force in Kabul after Afghanistan's Taleban rulers were toppled in 2001.
McColl will now take the role of deputy to the US commander in Iraq. Britain's military called his arrival "a slight increase in our representation".
British officers consider the peacekeeping and counter- insurgency tactics needed in southern Iraq to be their forte.
"They are better at it and have more experience than the Americans," said Ellie Goldsworthy, head of the UK Military Studies programme at the Royal United Services Institute.
"It may be that it's a good thing for the British to extend the area over which they are responsible, because British forces are particularly good at managing these types of situations."
Langton said the belief was now widespread in the British military establishment that heavy-handed US military tactics had made the situation worse by inflaming Iraqi public opinion.
"Nobody wants to criticise the effort the Americans have made, but I think they accept - and the Americans themselves accept - that they are constrained by their own doctrine," he said. "US military doctrine is a war-fighting doctrine.
British leaders may hope to persuade the Americans to exercise more restraint. But the price of influence is boots on the ground, said Ripley.
"By skulking in Basra, in many ways they were seen as being peripheral players. The main event is Baghdad, the Shia holy places, the centre of the country. There is a logic that says: get people in because you have more of a say over what goes on".
Comments
Comments are closed.