Britain extends targets in Iraq
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BRITAIN SAID yesterday it had expanded the list of targets its pilots could attack when they were challenged by air defences during patrols over Iraq.
George Robertson, the Secretary of State for Defence, told Parliament that air strikes during joint patrols in no-fly zones over Iraq were still a "purely defensive" response to attacks on British and United States pilots.
"We cannot simply ignore these attacks. We have therefore tailored the rules of engagement to reflect the escalation of the Iraqis in their systematic attacks on and threats to our aircraft," he said.
His announcement brought Britain into line with the US, which said on Tuesday that it had once again enlarged the list of targets its pilots were authorised to strike.
Government sources said pilots had extended their attacks to command and control bases in the region rather than just missile launch sites. One source said there was no military strategy in the pilots' actions. "If Saddam [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein] attacks, then we respond," he said.
Mr Robertson said that a change in the rules did not signal a change of policy on the no-fly zones. (Reuters)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments