This is a second page of your comments on the possible redeployment of UK troops in Iraq. Click here to return to the first page and add to the debate.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
 |  If it is military, then we should not expect MPs to vote on field tactics  |
I do believe it is a military request. And it can be proven by letting our military decide how to respond. If there is a need that the Black Watch could meet, then let them. Furthermore, if it is military, then we should not expect MPs to vote on field tactics.
Alan Davidson, London
As with everything with this government it is already decided beforehand. I just want to know what we are getting in return for this. Our troops should not have to risk their lives to boost Bush's re-election chances.
Dave Rynne, Sutton
Unfortunately, Britain agreed to the war in Iraq and as such has a duty to do whatever necessary to secure the country. However, to suggest that we should redeploy our troops into areas where friction with our American friends has built up over the course of the last year is not fair. Doing that is quite literally leaving the British to clean up America's mess. If you speak to any British soldier, I've no doubt they'd wholeheartedly agree with me. I also think it very suspicious that this should happen so close to an American Presidential election.
Justin, Bristol, England
| The Americans have always been our good friends and allies. |
The Americans have always been our good friends and allies. They were there for us during both World Wars. Thousands of GI's gave their lives. During the Falklands war they supplied us with vital intelligence. We should support them now. As for the softly, softly approach - are you kidding! How can you deal softly with the violent thugs in the Sunni Triangle? Yes it is a military request.
Jean Dyson (Brit), USA How can we possibly stay there? Even our troops are not sure what they are meant to be doing, this country simply cannot afford to be at war, what are we going to achieve? Some of our boys are on �49 a day for being in a war zone (my Son is one them) he says they are so short handed it is unbelievable like going out on patrol then being on guard all night. I say bring our troops out and let them get on with it because we are in a total no win situation, sending our boys up north would make them even more short handed in the south, If you cannot bring peace in a country with 140,000 troops then why are they still there
Chris, Hatfield
Does Britain have a duty to assist? You bet! The problem is, having read previous comments, it's pretty apparent that people in the UK are pretty uninformed about American politics. Is there unrest in Iraq? Undoubtedly! But there are a variety of reasons for this, surprisingly enough not all of them the fault of the USA. Look at history you'll see that any nation which emerges from a period of tyranny goes through this scenario before reaching stability in government. Furthermore, it was the British who cobbled together sundry factions in the Middle East 100 years ago and called them Iraq. Since it's partly a British responsibility for creating the mess in the first place, albeit a generation or so ago, why is it wrong to ask for support from British troops at this time? No-one wants their son, daughter, father, sister etc in a war zone, on either side of the Atlantic. However, having made the commitment there is a responsibility to see it through.
Susan, Lansing, USA
We should not agree to the US's request and should withdraw from Iraq before the new year. Iraq will end up like Vietnam after many lives have been lost in the process. Leave now.
Ian Sill, Solihull, UK
| I think Britain do have a duty to help |
I think Britain do have a duty to help. They are the second biggest force inside Iraq and shouldn't leave until a stable government that can protect it's own people is in place, as that is what U.N. peacekeepers do. In my opinion this is a political and military decision. British military commanders would refuse the US request if they thought there was a serious risk to UK soldiers and I think the US have started to see the light about the British policy of Hearts and Minds. UK forces have made Basra one of the most safest places in Iraq and can probably make other parts safe as well due to the experience they have in these types of situations having been deployed in Kenya, Northern Ireland and Malaya.
Luke, Middx One more time Tony Blair shows guts and resolve. If the conservative party gave birth to Churchill and Thatcher, the labour party gave birth to Tony Blair.
Ghaly Shafik, Cairo, Egypt
For those who put so much importance on America's role in 'saving' Britain in the two world wars, I would remind you that America entered both those wars with extremely bad grace and only when their own interests were threatened (Luistania, Zimmerman Telegram, Pearl Harbour) and they really couldn't avoid it. If we are to return the historical favour accurately, we should wait until America is inches from defeat and then deploy our troops. After all, it's only fair...
Caroline, Oxford, England
British troops should redeploy, that way they can face the attacks that have ravaged American troops for so long. The US and UK are allies in this war, and must share the burden.
Robert Soricelli, New York, NY
To be honest, the troops in Iraq are there do a job (One which they have done exceptionally well). As part of the Coalition we are obligated to help our allies. The only crime here is not the re-deployment of troops but the fact that The Black Watch were due to come home soon and will probably have there tour extended. Whether we feel that the war is right or wrong we now have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people to re-build there country. However as an ex-serviceman I have had first experience of the American military machine. Unfortunately the way in which the US and the UK wage war are totally different. This is what the British forces community are concerned about. Not about getting shot at as that is just a day at the office.
Mike, Milton Keynes
Our soldiers and their families deserve much better from their leaders and they need our support. They, like us are being badly let down by 'government', but to shirk from supporting the Americans at this stage will only prolong the stalemate that currently exists in Iraq. Tony Blair and his top advisers (the Chief of the Defence Staff and Chief of the General Staff) must shoulder the responsibility hereon in....and the public must make them pay if it goes wrong and give them medals if it goes OK!
Roger, Warminster, Wiltshire
Support the troops and support a free Iraq.
Mike, Manchester
British troops should and must be utilised by the US forces when and wherever needed. I think we must show clear unity when dealing with the conflict in Iraq.
Rob Mckerron, Forres, Scotland If it's not political, then why can't America send 650 troops of their own? Are they not capable of sorting out their own problems without the help of the UK? Does it take UK soldiers to sort it out for them?
Stuart, Horsham, West Sussex
Since there is no real plan for resolving the peace there, then why should the UK or any other country be deployed there? Bush was wrong to declare a war and think that he did not need any support to win it and now he expects others to clean up his mess? Forget it. Quit wasting human life on a plan which has failed from its inception.
Dev, Chicago USA
In my opinion, definitely not. This is obviously political, given the timing, with the US election in 2 weeks. Bush will do anything to give himself the advantage and the Brits have Basra fairly peaceful with their attitude to the Iraqis.
John Stonehewer, Parry Sound, Ont, Canada
Another foolish plan by Blair and Bush. Roll on the elections when we can finally be rid of these arrogant leaders. I feel so sorry for the army families - the Black Watch families were expecting their soldiers home in November.
Charlotte, Salisbury, Wiltshire
Put Blair and Hoon into uniform, send them to Falluja with a rifle and see how brave they are. They would soon be calling out to pull the troops back home.
Andrew Nelson, Hexham, Northumberland
| Have any of you thought to ask whether the Iraqis want this? |
I'm perturbed to think that there are so many of you around the world commentating on this issue. Whether you are pro or anti sending in the troops, you can all be classified as armchair dictators. Have any of you thought to ask whether the Iraqis want this? Will somebody please ask the Iraqis!
Paul, London
Yes, we owe it to the decent people in Iraq to provide them with security. Having destabilised their country by siding with one megalomaniac in a war against another, the British troops will be received in the area like a breath of spring air after the US troops.
Matthew, Sevenoaks
As an ex soldier I find it incredible that in 2004 we are embroiled in a political war under the guise of War on Terrorism. It is the honourable British soldier left to pick up the pieces of failed politicians in the elite club of Bush and Blair. Bring our soldiers home now. This is an ego trip for Bush and Blair. They would do far better focusing on serious home issues, like houses for the soldiers' families and children, and houses for indigenous families. I would not fight for Blair or Bush as a matter of principle.
Nigel Harper, Copthorne, West Sussex
| The insurgents are dictating the policies of the UK, US and Iraqi governments |
The insurgents are dictating the policies of the UK, US and Iraqi governments. One would hope that the ultimate decision would be made based on the best recommendations of the British Military Commanders on the ground and not the politicians in Whitehall, Washington and Baghdad. Where is the plan to train an Iraqi army to deal with the insurgents?
Heather, Ontario, Canada
It seems no matter what the US does is wrong. We ask the world for help to lessen the embitterment of the Iraqi/Arab people against the West and what help we get runs at the first sign of danger. If we carry this alone we are blamed. If we ask for help we are blamed. If we leave Iraq it'll become Afghanistan. What do you want, people?!
Kathryn, Augusta, GA, USA
To Kathryn, Augusta: It's quite simple. We want the USA to stop trying to tell the rest of the world what to do and to listen to the opinions of others. It was your war after all - the Brits went along because we have a weak leader. If you really want to help the world, then get Bush out of the White House on 2 November.
Ian, UK
To Kathryn, Augusta: What do we want? An admission that US and UK government policy up to now has been badly wrong. Why on earth should I support the continuing actions of people who will not accept that they have messed things up badly? At least if Bush and Blair were to properly admit their failings, there might be some hope of a more sensible approach in future. While they continue to try and justify what so many of us regard as unjustifiable, then we can have no confidence in them.
Jon G, Huddersfield, UK
Jack Straw says there is no need to extend the tour of duty for troops, so if Black Watch are scheduled to return to UK in November are they being redeployed for two weeks only. Maybe till just after the US Presidential election? Or is Jack Straw using government-speak - that is lying through his teeth.
Tony Fleming, Andover, Hants
| We should move British troops to hot spots if that will eradicate opposition and help Iraq back on its feet |
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the war, we're in there now and we have a job to do. We've destabilised a country and created a potential power vacuum, so I think we need to do whatever it takes to stabilise things sufficiently for a military withdrawal. As such, we should move British troops to hot spots if that will eradicate opposition and help Iraq back on its feet. However, I need to be convinced that this isn't just an election stunt by George Bush. I think we should wait to deploy until after the elections.
Claire, London
This is political move if ever there was one. Are we really expected to believe the US is short by 650 troops? But due to past blunders regarding Iraq, our government is not in a position to say no. Having seen the heartache caused by the deaths of Plymouth-based marines during the invasion makes my thoughts closer to home.
Natalie, Plymouth, UK
Just 650 troops to get Bush another term in power� yeah, it's like Bush and Blair can do what they want! Does it really matter what anyone thinks or writes here? A handful of powerful white men rule this world.
Alby, UK
I think it is too late for us to back out. We entered this with the Americans so we should see it through, or else it is a job half done. We have the best soldiers in the world. I think that the Americans need us, as do the Iraqis!
Libethy, Huntingdon
Where is the sense in this? Once the US begins its assault on Falluja, the south will erupt and the British forces there will have no reserve to call on. It's all very well for Blair and Hoon to play politics in the US elections but I fear we will all pay a dreadful price for this.
Robert, Swansea, Wales
I think this is a military request, the US needs back up and knows what it is doing. We are involved completely in this awful detestable situation. It would be foolish and inept to undermine the US request, we should stand firm at this time with them until the situation is redefined. And this could be soon. We should do all we can to support our troops in Iraq, and support the Iraqi people. Time will change the shape of this conflict. We should be strong and determined and not undermine one single soldier out there in Iraq. Just get them home as soon as possible where they belong.
Don Oddy, Chelsea, London
Do the people on this message board really believe that a mere redeployment of 650 troops will secure Bush's election? You English certainly have a high opinion of yourselves. If you are going to be an ally of the US then act like one. Frankly, we here in the US are fed up with the constant whining. Let's just make Iraq a viable democracy - whatever it takes okay?!
R Cummins, Heart of Dixie, USA
That the world's only superpower should need to ask for a reserve force of 650 troops from other sources is incredulous. To contend that this is an operational and not a political requirement is even harder to swallow.
DK Cooper, Pune, India
| The presence of the most professional military on the planet will show the insurgents that the coalition means business |
These guys are professional soldiers it is their job to work in dangerous environments. The presence of the most professional military on the planet will show the insurgents that the coalition means business. However they should not be under the command of the US. If British troops were in Baghdad from the start it would have been tamed long ago.
Alex, Baghdad, Iraq
We need to continue to support this and also prove that the Brits can do a better job in the Sunni triangle than the Americans.
Jim Russell, Wishaw, Scotland
So many people from the UK are still clinging to their long foregone days of glory and world dominance and this seems to be one of the reasons why they can't bring themselves to accept US Command or to accept the euro currency. Accept the facts Brits, your Prime Minister now, like head of state of several countries of the world, has his masters working out of the White House. Might is right, whether you like it or not.
Sumair, Haarlem, the Netherlands
What is the point in discussing this since the decision has clearly already been made? Since the request was made on October 10 why didn't parliament discuss it then?
John Barrett, Southampton, UK
I think the British troop should be sent to support our allies, that is what allies do, isn't it?
Richard West, Ipswich
Yes, of course the UK has a duty to help. Let's not forget that US troops are in the real hotspots and if they need to call on the British to help them out then we shouldn't even think twice about it! Our troops are in the world's best army and they joined up to fight. I know this point gets mentioned time and time again but we should not forget what the US did for us 60 years ago. We are allies and allies fight together.
Lee, UK
| I am very surprised Mr Blair has decided to yet again remove himself from the majority public opinion |
I am very surprised Mr Blair has decided to yet again remove himself from the majority public opinion. I think he will end up paying for this decision. Yet again Britain is helping George Bush to "come up trumps in Falluja" and win his next term of office. Nothing this government says regarding Iraq can be believed.
James Brock, London
They should support the Americans. We have from the start of the campaign so not to do so now would undermine the battle on terrorism and give the impression to the terrorist that they have divided the major powers because of their hostage taking exploits.
Bob H, Herts
As a close alliance of the US, UK should move in as requested or else what is purpose of and why had Tony Blair been so adamant going to war with Iraq even at a fabricated pretext.
Martin Lau, Hong Kong
It is absolutely clear that it is not about a tactical move of British troops, it is mostly about Bush getting extra votes before the 2 November. I really doubt this request could be ever made by US if there was a chance Blair would say no.
Ivan, Moscow, Russia
I have a few short words to say about this: "Just don't do it!"
Jeanie, Heerlen, The Netherlands
Redeployment of British troops to the radicalised zone of Iraq may be educational. A spell in the deeper end of the Iraq quagmire may induce the British government to think twice before bartering away Britain's national honour to the next episode in the revolution in military affairs.
Katz, Australia
If the 650 members of the Black Watch are the UK's reserve battalion in Iraq and they are moved nearer to Baghdad, who will replace them as the reserve battalion for UK troops in Basra? Won't this leave our troops exposed? If anything should happen in Basra will the US readily release the Black Watch to return to the South even if it means exposing their own troops in the North?
Mike, Hong Kong
| It would be interesting to see whether the British Army can continue its hearts and minds campaign |
The UK and US militaries have a history of working closely together and I don't see any difference here. However, it would be interesting to see whether the British Army can continue its hearts and minds campaign, an area in which the Americans appear to have been less successful thus far. As an ex-soldier and veteran of the first Gulf War and the Balkans I know from experience that something as simple as replacing a helmet with a less aggressive beret can have a remarkable affect!
Greg, Cardiff, UK
I think the underlying sentiment here is that Britain should cut and run. Imagine if you will, what would have happened in WWII if the Americans left before the fight was finished. You cannot be allies only when things are going well, you must stick it through until your objectives are met.
Cindy Hoffman, Sherman, Texas, USA
Seems like a lot of people here are obsessed with proving the pro-war people wrong. The real question should be what is best for the Iraqi people? Obviously a full retreat is going to lead to political instability. Regardless of whether the war was right or wrong, British troops are needed to help the Iraqi people now.
Dave, Toronto, Canada
We, as a nation, were happy to put our forces under Eisenhower's command for D-Day. And we were glad to do so. Now that we have been committed to Iraq.... we must honour our obligations - not only to the USA but to the World! We must maintain our honour - regardless of the perceived rights and wrongs of Iraq War II.
Mark, Nottingham, UK
US does not have enough troops to help Iraqis, so the British Government should match the number of troops with US so that they can get the job done that they so willing started.
Joe Ngyen, Seattle, WA, USA
The very fact that this further involvement is even being considered shows just how far Tony Blair has removed himself from the rest of us. He must go.
Jim Cavanagh, Chorley, Lancashire
| I believe our government is using your nation's support for its own political purposes |
I am very grateful for all the help you have given us, but I believe our government is using your nation's support for its own political purposes. I cannot imagine how this could possibly benefit you and when all is said and done, you would be better off to withdraw your troops and leave us to the mess we have created. There might be some harsh words, but I doubt there will be any lasting harm.
Torger Amundson, Fort Collins, USA
Maths isn't my strongest but, as I understand it, the UK forces have sustained 92 deaths out of about 8,000 troops in Iraq whereas the American's have sustained 1,062 out of 130,000. Proportionately that is about the same which suggests the British troops aren't currently having quite as cushy a time as being suggested. I don't have a problem, in principle, with British troops being moved to fulfil operational needs, if that is indeed the case, but would much prefer if they were under British command as the potential for problems otherwise if things go pear-shaped is unlimited. As for whatever Geoff Hoon has got to say about it, I wouldn't trust anything the man says.
Paul, UK
I am a Scottish soldier. The Black Watch Bn will be redeployed; this decision has already been taken. Other troops including our unit have been warned off to move back to Iraq (Op TELIK 5) for the elections! This move will see the British troops bogged down in a US sector and extremely stretched. The British Troops have become a pawn in the US elections to secure Bush a second term. Agree or disagree we just get on with it and do our job.
A SL Dier, Glasgow, Scotland
If they are to be redeployed (which they shouldn't be) let it at least be after the US election. Whether or not it is meant to be a political move is irrelevant - it has political significance and so should be delayed at least.
Jack, Essex
| Could be a positive step to ending the violence |
As much as I am against the war in Iraq, maybe moving our troops into US controlled territory is a good idea. It would be a great opportunity to try and sort out the mess that the US has made in the northern cities such as Baghdad and Falluja. The same approach to these cities as the British troops have had in Basra could be a positive step to ending the violence.
Nick, UK
Are we to believe that the most expensive army in the world cannot spare 650 men? This issue has to with the election and Bush's attempt to prove that everything in Iraq is under control. I wonder what the US will to help Blair when he has to face elections.
Kiriaki Anomeriti, Greece
Yes, Britain's troops should re-deploy. They are the best fighters out there and the job they do is second to none.
Tony, Belfast, NI
Surely the Americans can find 600 of their own troops to fill the places. Or is this the thin end of the wedge - a US tactical withdrawal leaving us holding the baby?
Dave Hough, Nottingham, UK
Much as I respect our troops professionalism, I just don't believe that the USA has any military/operational need for 650 British troops to bolster its 30,000 plus forces. The request is clearly politically motivated and is designed to bolster Bush's position in the run up to election, showing the electorate that he is not isolated as portrayed by France loving Kerry. No matter what Blair says to deny this, the very act of giving this request serious public consideration, never mind actually saying yes will have the effect of bolstering Bush. Actions speak louder than words. The thought of putting more UK citizens at risk to bolster Dubya makes me sick. Blair must say no.
Graham, London
To me this conflict signed the end of the world.
Mohammed Ali Sambo, Bauchi, Nigeria
The soldiers that refused to be a part of the convoy cannot be accused of lack of courage. It takes a lot of courage to refuse an order. If only the guards in Abu Ghraib had shown similar courage.
Alisya Komatery, Athens, Greece
Politically, it would be a very foolish move for the Government to comply with the US request. Strategically, and in my view more importantly, if there is a genuine need for British (not just 'English', please) troops to move further inland and sort this almighty mess out, then so be it. Like the majority I am deeply unhappy about the Iraq situation, but unfortunately the time for UN intervention and diplomacy has long gone; it is an unenviable task the Government has made for us, but having started, we cannot just sit back and give excuses for not doing everything in our power to help.
Graham, Dundee, UK
Since my opinion about the UK going into Iraq didn't have any influence on Blair, nor will my opinion on this issue. Blair can't refuse (even if he for one moment wanted to - which I doubt) because the UK would have a lot of negative press in the US (remember the treatment handed out to France and Germany?). This will be yet another sad demonstration that the UK has become the 51st State - but without the right to vote in November (more's the pity - I know who I'd be voting for).
Sheila, The Netherlands
| You can't go into a war along side your allies and pick and choose which part of the war is for you and which part isn't |
You can't go into a war along side your allies and pick and choose which part of the war is for you and which part isn't. Tony Blair signed up for this war rightly or wrongly and now has to see it through. Blair cannot no matter what he says go back on his promise to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. Its just not an option.
Pat, Sussex Definitely not. The Americans have far more manpower available than us. Let them get on with it.
Ron Braithwaite, Leicester UK
The issue here is not whether or not the troops should be there or not. They're there - live with it! The issue is whether British troops should be moved out of their theatre of operations. What does it mean for instance for them to be under the American command and control system? What does it mean for them to be utilising American supply lines? Will it be possible for them to continue with their softly, softly approach to their work? Will the area that they've left be secure without them? It is important that someone is providing security for ordinary Iraqis from terrorist attacks. The devil, as always, is in the detail. Before anyone can judge whether UK troops should be redeployed calm answers need to be given to the questions above.
Andrew, Cardiff, UK
The very fact that there is so much controversial discussion seems to prove, in my mind, that nobody knows what they are doing and as a direct result, the people in the front, US, UK, Iraqis whoever, are all suffering the consequences.
Meena, New York USA
Any further use of foreign national troops by the US can only lead to further harsh feelings of the British towards the American Government. The use of American troops in Cambodia and Laos during Vietnam led to totally harsh feelings in our own country. As one who was a grunt in Vietnam knows, it's the soldiers who suffer because of poor decisions of their government.
Patrick Tracy, Washington, DC, USA
No. Britain should not have joined this war in the first place. Having done so, it has incurred certain obligations which British troops are fulfilling efficiently in the area for which they were made responsible. That is enough. Their role should not be extended, and they should certainly not be placed under direct United States command.
M Perkin, Kingston Surrey
Our troops have done their duty in Iraq. It is now time to get them out of there not sending them to support the Americans. Don't forget the name in the frame for going is The Black Watch who are supposed to be home with their families in less than two weeks time. Spare a thought for all of them who have waited so long to see their sons, husbands, brothers, not to mention they should never have been out there again so soon. Let the boys come home they have done Scotland proud but have done their duty now, let America fight their own war.
Jill, Woking
| If the military commanders on the ground want to make a tactical decision to move troops then they should be moved. |
If the military commanders on the ground want to make a tactical decision to move troops then they should be moved. Politicians should restrict themselves to strategic decisions and not hamper, stifle, change or influence tactical decisions made by commanders on the ground. Though I confess putting our troops near armed Americans does scare me.
Martin, England I don't think the British troops should be re-deployed to fill in for the Americans. It's widely accepted by military analysts that there have never been enough troops in Iraq to successfully control the country after the invasion - a clear sign that the Americans had no plan other than to invade. I think any back-up troops should come from the US, but the possibility of that occurring two weeks before the US election is about zero!
James, Tasmania
I hope the Chief of Defence Staff will have the integrity to resign immediately if he's pressurised into allowing British troops to be placed at risk for what is only an electoral ploy by Bush to gain a swift victory of some sort before the presidential election.
John M, Lyne Meads, UK
Why shouldn't they? The British role in today's Iraq is not one of help but a responsibility. Send them now!
Around Rashid Den, New York, USA
I don't object to sending British troops to control new areas of Iraq - I just think that they should be able to do so using their own methods, not trying to fit into a US military command that seems to think that air attacks are "surgical" and that the best way to convince a people of your good intentions is to wave guns at them while wearing heavy armour. History has shown us that while the USA may be our No. 1 ally, we fight best side by side, but separately. We just have very different military methods and traditions.
Graham Bertram, London, UK
The media moans when UK troops are being used for donkey work, and then they moan even more when the USA asks them to take on a more challenging role. British troops are well trained and while being apprehensive, they will probably be looking forward to the challenge. Yes they should be sent, if they're not god forbid we ever need the USA to bail us out of a sticky situation...again!
Chris H, Harrogate
Never say never to a re-deployment of troops. If it helps to bring about a peace in Iraq quicker than would otherwise occur it has got to be considered. To work however the following criteria need to be satisfied. Our troops would need to have the means, the equipment and the authority to do the job in the "British way". The American philosophy on how to deal with insurgents is too far removed from the British philosophy for it to be able to work in any other way. One final thing. Our troops need to know that a move is properly planned with the requisite alternative plans for differing scenarios including the exit strategy.
Bill Tucker, Portsmouth, England Many here comment that it would be better for US troops to serve under UK commanders. Your problems are with the US president, not the military. The military is the arm of the government so don't confuse ineptness on the part of our president with that of the military. In spite of some of the most uncertain situations, the US military has behaved with skill and professionalism. Fire back with Abu Ghraib and war crimes in Vietnam if you will. Out of hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform, you can find only a dozen or so that have behaved with dishonour. Separate your opinions on governments from those of the soldiers and I will respect your opinion.
James Stein, Boston, USA
To William Hebb: Actually the last war Britain fought and won on its own was only 22 years ago in the Falklands. It was a complete British victory. Nonetheless, I believe that if required, British forces should go to where ever required in Iraq, so long as the Iraqi government is consulted. Equally, British commanders must have equal say as their American counterparts. 'With great power, comes great responsibility'. We must act to help peace-loving Iraqis to transform their country for the better.
James Rogers, Cambridge, UK
The US should manage its own resources. It is Bush's war, after all. If that means holding back from destroying Falluja then that might be a benefit. If it means the draft in the US, then that will bring the incompetence of this war home properly.
David, London
| My husband is currently serving in the gulf and the only comfort to me is the fact that he's nowhere near the Americans. |
Absolutely not!! My husband is currently serving in the gulf and the only comfort to me is the fact that he's nowhere near the Americans. God help any of our guys who may have to get involved in the total mess that the Americans have created for themselves. Our soldiers deserve more than this!
Wendy, Wolverhampton, UK My answer is a definite no. It is time to bring our troops home and let the Iraq people sort it out themselves with the UN keeping an eye on the situation. I think that all of the genuine people that have been killed in this mess is down to Blair and Bush. The cost of all this should be borne by the Labour Party because of Blair and the war itself has pushed up prices of goods and fuel in this country because of it.
Malcolm Huggins, North Yorkshire
They should, because it's about time British troops started pulling their weight rather than taking the easy assignments, but I can't see the government going ahead with it. When British troops start getting killed more regularly the government will be under even more pressure about the war.
Andrew, Swansea
I don't care. When I took to the streets in Feb and March 2003 I vociferously declared that this war was not being fought in my name. It is the moral duty of those who supported the war to sort out the mess and to do whatever it takes. Personally, I think the lot of them should be forcibly conscripted and sent out there to cover the Americans.
Joe Marx, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
I find the endless negative UK comments regarding their few troops being under American command palpably arrogant and contemptuous of a relationship that has more than stood the test of time. Most of the comments seem based on far more anti-American sentiment than anti-war or military/logistical sentiment and certainly evidences a self proclaimed self righteousness indicative of a total lack of knowledge of their own countries' history at war. Perhaps they should sit back and try to remember the last war that the UK won on its own - without allies - and in what century that might have occurred before they complain about the chain of command.
William Hebb, The Netherlands
To William Hebb - Your history seems a little shaky. The last war won by the UK, on its own, without allies was the Falklands. I think British troops should take the assignment and show that they are the best trained troops in the world but should be under UK command
Barry, Cheshire
All this has to do with the US November election. Why should our troops be spread thinly and be put at increased risk to save GW Bush and his administration. Come our election next year I bet Bush does not tell Blair to take British troops home to improve Labour's election chances?
Paul Weaver, Winchester, UK
I rejected the idea of going to war, but we went to war as a coalition. Running away like cowards do is not the answer. There is a name for soldiers that refuse to go into battle. When things were difficult, America was there for Britain. When things are difficult for America, Britain must be there for America.
Carlos Cortiglia, London, United Kingdom
| They should not be deployed to serve under the American flag |
I don't agree with the British troops being in Iraq in the first place. However, they appear to be doing a good job like the professionals they are. They should not be deployed to serve under the American flag. They would probably be under more danger from the Americans than the rebel Iraqi fighters!
Jude, Worcester, UK
No our troops should be brought home now. Read what US troops say who have managed to leave the US Forces (usually months after they should have left) say. We are told that the 17 reservists who refused to deliver goods was an isolated incident; I seem to recall that when the torture of Iraqi's was first brought to light we were told it was an isolated incident.
Mick, Leeds, UK
One major asset that the British Army has is its leadership. Placing our troops under the control of the US will be like taking their guns away from them. Why not put the US troops under UK control? Surely that would be far more sensible.
Dave Osborne, Worcestershire, UK
| As allies with the USA we should be fully prepared and willing participants |
As allies with the USA we should be fully prepared and willing participants. I speak as a former soldier and do not forget the Americans that have bravely stood alongside us over the years. Truly, they are worthy of our commitment and full backing as we have been of theirs. The USA have proved their readiness to stand up for these shared values. Those who bleat about the USA are only to willing to see our troops alongside Germans and French who are not our natural allies and neither share our Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Tony Oliver, London, UK
Hasn't anyone seen the string that goes from GW's hand to the back of our Tony's neck? Whatever George wants, George gets. And stuff the consequences for our boys!
Mike Cooke, Newcastle under Lyme
I fail to understand the issue. When the British Prime Minister can take orders from the American President, why can't British troops be under the command of US generals?
Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan
If there's to be any change in the rules of engagement, the government should make a clear statement in parliament to explain why. They should not be expected to carry out duties contrary to British policy.
David, London
I always took the British to be better informed than this, but many of the people posting here have totally missed the point. The US military is not asking the British army to clean up their mess or to take the offensive for them. As of now, the Iraqi forces are unreliable and the US forces can not turn over pacified areas to them, we tried in the past and the insurgents drove them off. What we need is the English to move into the pacified areas to free up US troops for offensives in the north.
Brent, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Help yes, but considering the Iraq record the US troops would be better under British command.
Douglas, Eastcote, Middlesex, UK
| He's there to do a job and would like support while he does it |
Absolutely. It is time everyone stopped whining about this. My husband Mike is out there and he is just fed up of all the whining in the press - he says he's there to do a job and would like support while he does it, not carping and moaning.
Harriet, UK
To Harriet, UK: Everyone supports the women and men, it's the hypocrisy and lies, the bigotry and greed that people don't support. I spent 12 years "working for democracy" and it was the most wasted 12 years, the least useful 12 years and the most detested 12 years of my life. Now, Blair is asking our troops top put themselves into an impossible situation and at the mercy of US troops to? No, our troops shouldn't be forced into close engagements with American troops, it's madness. The only movements British troops should be doing is flying home.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK
This move violates a number of British agreements about codes of engagement which the Americans are not bound by. This fundamentally undermines our integrity as an army. This collusion with the world's most dangerous nation must stop. It goes against many of the treaties we have signed with other nations.
Ian Gibbons, Haringey, London
Blimey with all their equipment, manpower and resources the US still needs our help. Just goes to show how respected our forces are despite the best efforts of the government.
Tom, UK
Is Mr Blair really considering making another massive blunder, in the light of his previous decisions regarding Iraq, should he not be re-deploying our troops nearer to Aldershot and all home bases rather than Baghdad, where will Mr Blair be if Bush loses the election and the US decide to pull out. Just let the Iraqis get on with clearing up the mess that has been made, God help them, because Tony and George will not.
William Nevins, London
The Americans more aggressive and repressive tactics has caused a violent backlash in the area they try to control. We never condoned those tactics so why should we put British soldiers lives at risk by going to their aid now. The US caused the mess and it is for them to put it right.
David Long, Pulborough, UK
Another transparent piece of electioneering from GW. Tony will comply of course. Such is politics. It amazes me that our troops on the ground continue to march to the beat of this very tired old drum.
Bob, Cheshire
The American gung-ho attitude to the situation has at least in part contributed to the mess in which they now find themselves. There is no way in which UK troops should be sent in behind them to clear up the mess. However, undoubtedly the UK will fulfil its duty, by doing exactly what the Pentagon wants.
Andrew, Nottingham, UK
There are all sorts of political sub-texts here which need considering, especially in the run-up to the US elections. But - why do we hear nothing about Iraqi command in these reports? Who's making the decisions here? Was this what was supposed to happen?
Jane, Lancaster, UK
| We should be helping the needy not the greedy |
What it seems here is that we have British troops asked to go into a hornets nest without smoke, and worse, the nest has been prodded and poked by Bush's far away rantings. This war is wrong; it is driven by the need to obtain oil stocks. We should be helping the needy not the greedy. Our troops will no doubt do a grand job, of what is asked of them. They do as they are told. We should understand that and support them whatever.
Tony, North East UK
As usual, we're cleaning up their mess. For all their chest-beating about being the world's most powerful nation, when it comes to the crunch our troops are better trained.
Luke, Bristol, UK
The duty of our British troops is for the protection of our nation, and not to be used for political string-pulling. As for the deserters from the US army reserve, it's very obvious as to what pressure the US military forces are under. Therefore, why should our British troops do the dirty work for them? Have we not lost enough British lives, yet?
Simon, Darlington, England
Of course they should. They are in Iraq already and should be used in the most effective way to win the conflict.
Peter Murphy, Cape Town, South Africa
Like it or hate it, we are there, and a job needs to be done. I only hope that if the US military then concentrate on sorting out Falluja, the rest of the country will settle down a bit and allow ordinary Iraqi's the opportunity to rebuild their country. Footnote: there are no deserters in the US reserve corps - they declined to undertake an operation, rightly or wrongly. One could argue that to undertake a mission when you are clearly ill-prepared or delivering suspect goods, seems like commonsense. Deserters are military personnel who actually do go missing from their base.
Anne Grey, London, UK
Certainly not. The British style of operation has seen gains in the south with the typical hearts and minds approach in stark contract to the US approach of overwhelming firepower. For all their military and leadership experience the US has not learnt from the many lessons in history that such an approach just does not work. To link UK troops to these operations could damage their reputation and that of their achievements so far in Iraq.
James, Abu Dhabi
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 