Half-truths, dissembling and confusion

Thursday 21 October 2004 19:00 EDT
Comments

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.

The British troops going to relieve the US forces in the Sunni triangle of Iraq would remain under the operation of a British general, the Defence Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, said yesterday, announcing the decision in the Commons. A few hours later the Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Michael Walker, declared that the Black Watch troops involved would be under day-to-day "tactical" American control.

The British troops going to relieve the US forces in the Sunni triangle of Iraq would remain under the operation of a British general, the Defence Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, said yesterday, announcing the decision in the Commons. A few hours later the Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Michael Walker, declared that the Black Watch troops involved would be under day-to-day "tactical" American control.

And so the final decision was confirmed as it had been presaged - in half-truths, government dissembling and a continuing confusion between military and political imperatives. That the Cabinet decided to accede to US requests for support as it prepares an all-out assault on Fallujah surprised no one. It has been clear for days that our government had basically said yes. What they hadn't worked out was a method of announcing the decision that took account of the unexpected resistance the issue had aroused among Labour backbenchers, even some of the most slavish loyalists. No doubt the military could have finally said no on logistical grounds but, considering the planners had been preparing the move for the past couple of weeks, it was hardly likely.

Yet the final agreement hardly closes the issue. We have agreed to move some 900 troops and support staff to the US sector to free up American troops for the attack on Fallujah. But does that mean we support the assault and, more to the point, are we prepared to be openly associated with an attack that has already led to the loss of hundreds of civilian lives in the preparatory bombing?

How, too, can the Prime Minister guarantee his promise of having the troops back by Christmas. If this is a purely military decision, as Geoffrey Hoon claimed yesterday, then it must be subject to the exigencies of the battle on the ground. Should the attack on Fallujah get bogged down, should the Black Watch get locked into an escalating confrontation in its new area, can we withdraw the troops according to a predetermined schedule? It would be militarily culpable if we did.

This is a bad decision on every ground, badly prepared and ill-presented. It should never have been made this way. It should never have been made at all.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in