BRITAIN: The British government faced fresh warnings of "mission creep" last night, as Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon prepared to accede to a US request to redeploy British troops outside the UK-controlled sector in Iraq.
Relatives of soldiers serving with the Black Watch reacted angrily to news that the regiment might be deployed to release US forces for a fresh assault on insurgent strongholds.
A leading defence expert warned that any redeployment of UK troops could result in serious public concerns if it led to heavy British casualties. "What we don't want is serious combat losses amongst British troops," said Mr Thomas Withington, research associate at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College London. Whatever the rights and wrongs of going to war, Mr Withington said, it was now clearly unpopular among large sections of the public. "If British troops, God forbid, start dying en masse there are going to be serious questions asked about why we are here exactly."
And Col Tim Collins, who led British forces during the initial assault on Iraq, raised the political temperature further, warning that Britain risked being dragged into a new Vietnam.
Speaking of the proposed redeployment, Col Collins, who has left the British army, was quoted in the London Evening Standard as saying: "It represents on a grand strategic scale an escalation in warfare, perhaps at a time when the need is for a diplomatic offensive to bring on board other allies to solve this crisis for the good of Iraq."
During sustained and critical questioning following his Commons statement, Mr Hoon maintained no decision would be taken until after a reconnaissance mission in Iraq today, and following a final recommendation from the Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir Michael Walker, later this week.
However, MPs on all sides concluded the decision was already effectively made when Mr Hoon told Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tongue that Britain will "have failed in its duty as an ally" if it refuses the US request.
Mr Hoon sought to reassure MPs that British forces would not find themselves in legal difficulties as a result of being placed under direct US command or subject to different rules of engagement. "UK rules of engagement are more than adequate for the task envisaged," he declared. And he insisted troops would not be sent to insurgent strongholds in Baghdad or Falluja.
Mr Hoon also flatly rejected suggestions that the proposed redeployment had anything to do with the US presidential election. There was a "very clear operational justification" for the request from the US command on October 10th, he said.
Insofar as there were considerations of an electoral kind, Mr Hoon told MPs it was to create "the best circumstances" in which the proposed Iraqi elections could take place in January.
"The government remains totally committed to holding free elections in January," said Mr Hoon, "and seeing Iraq take up its rightful place in the international community."
He continued: "The US request is for a limited number of UK ground forces to be made available to relieve US forces to allow them in turn to participate in further operations elsewhere in Iraq to maintain the continuing pressure on terrorists."
For the Conservatives, Mr Nicholas Soames maintained any redeployment would leave "a big capability gap" in the south-eastern British-controlled sector in Iraq and would represent "a fundamental change" in the nature of the UK commitment.
A number of MPs questioned how the redeployment of some 600 British personnel could make a difference when the US has over 130,000 troops in Iraq. And veteran Labour MP Mr Dennis Skinner told Mr Hoon: "I do not take kindly to the idea that we are to be engaged by the White House and the Pentagon in order to bail them out."