Should we be sending more Scottish soldiers to Iraq?

Published on Friday 12 August 2005 00:03

YES: John Reid

Helping Iraqis to build their nation and security and to counter insurgency, we must not leave a job half-done

THE next changeover of British units in Iraq, which we expect to complete by November this year, is currently planned to involve 7 Armoured Brigade; although the full details are still to be finalised and formally announced.

In light of this next roulement, The Scotsman has, in recent days, asked why, at this stage, we may need to send Scottish soldiers to Iraq. I want to take this opportunity to explain why continuing commitment from the UK in Iraq remains essential.

The government remains fully committed to supporting the Iraqi people. In part, this means providing help to the Iraqi government, for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security.

In fact, our top priority is to help the Iraqis to build their own capabilities, so that they can improve their own security. Good progress is being made. The coalition has now trained and equipped over 175,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen. Some Iraqi units are already fully capable of working on their own and undertaking counter-insurgency operations. But it will take time to bring the capability of all the Iraqi Security Forces up to the required level.

This work is not just happening in Iraq. Today, in Sandhurst, an Iraqi officer cadet will receive the prestigious Overseas Sword for graduating as the best foreign student on his course. At our Infantry Training School in Wales, other very high-quality Iraqi soldiers are being trained by the British Army. These Iraqis will return to Iraq to run their own training schools.

Of course, we do not want to remain in Iraq longer than is necessary, but we must not leave the job half-done. On 4 July, I told the BBC that, within a year it is possible that we could begin to see the Iraqi security forces leading the counter-insurgency effort. In turn, this may then lead to our reducing the numbers of British troops in Iraq.

In determining the scope and timeline for eventual UK force level reductions in Iraq, I will consider the readiness of the Iraqi security forces to take responsibility for a range of security tasks; the overall security situation; and progress on the political process and reconstruction effort.

Each of these factors will be looked at across the four provinces in which the UK forces predominantly operate and across Iraq as a whole. We will do this in close consultation with the government of Iraq and our coalition partners.

But in the meantime, British forces, who show a high degree of professionalism and commitment to the task in Iraq, will continue to play a vital role. All of the units in 7th Armoured Brigade, including any Scottish elements, will play a core role in that task.

Although I have only been in my role for a few months, I have seen for myself in Iraq the magnificent job being performed by our servicemen and women. They deserve the support of us all.

• John Reid is the Secretary of State for Defence

NO: Mona Siddiqui

Extra troops will provoke fiercer resistance - only calm negotiations can ever bring peace

PLANS to send more troops to Iraq will be met with a simple question - why? If the rationale is that increased military might will succeed in quelling the rising insurgency, then one wonders how the combined forces of the Allies have not been able to do that already.

But there is a chance that the government's thinking might be remotely ethical and it needs to show some commitment to resolving the mess it has been partially responsible for creating. If this is the case, the question remains: what is the immediate to long-term strategy for restoring some sense of security and autonomy in Iraq?

And then there is the more important question: do we have any realistic timeframe for eventually pulling out our troops? Even with some semblance of an Iraqi government and an occupation that sees itself as physical and not political, this faade is all too fragile. If the mayor of Baghdad can be ousted with 120 gunmen surrounding his office, what hope is there that the Iraqi police and security will ever be able to cope with the lawlessness, fear and violence that has engulfed the major cities of Iraq?

And what about our fears for the British troops? They are not going into a war, for the war is supposedly over, but with daily roadside bombings, they are walking into a potential death trap. Is their role to be soldiers, peacekeepers or policemen?

If the thinking is that enough is enough and it is time for some sustained brutal force against the Shiite extremists and the Sunni insurgents, then the consequences will be horrendous. Rather than achieving any semblance of normality in Iraq, the "collateral damage" that will be the inevitable consequence is going to make criminals out of our troops, losing them any respect they might have earned amongst some Iraqi civilians.

Furthermore, while we fight our own war on terror at home, struggling to make sense of the London bombs, this type of action will fuel more resentment and cynicism about British foreign policy.

Those who claim that the British presence in Iraq has nothing to do with Islamist terror might, however, be right. Even if bin Laden and his associates tell the West to get out of Muslims lands, one suspects that their real concern is Saudi Arabia, not the ravaged and conflict-ridden Iraq. But Iraq has become a gaping wound for the international community, showing no sign of healing.

Iraq also opens up the question of Afghanistan, the first country targeted in George Bush's war on terror. However bloody, the conflict in Iraq is being contained geographically, but the silent yet growing presence of the Taleban remnants along the Pakistan border continue to have a far reaching impact. It is in their messages where the seeds of radicalism and extremism are sown.

These messages translate into different forms of political and religious activism, threatening local and global security and it is here where the international community should remain focused. One can't help feeling that despite killing thousands in Afghanistan, the job was never done and we are still paying the price for claiming a hollow victory.

If the Prime Minister is to regain any moral ground over the Iraq war, he cannot recall the British troops already there. They will have to stay and help the Iraqi government establish the peace and democracy we are so keen on forcing upon them. But sending more soldiers with no clear long-term plans will only produce more resistance and continue to emphasise the basic flaws of this whole invasion. Terrorism at home and abroad will not end with more troops on the ground - it will end only when we start calm and far-sighted negotiations.

• Mona Siddiqui is director of the Centre for the Study of Islam at Glasgow University.

YOUR VIEWS

Moral question

You have to question the morality of a government that is happy to ask soldiers repeatedly to enter Iraq and lay their lives on the line, while at the same time back home destroying their regiment.

We ask so much of our soldiers and they seem to get so little in return, certainly financially when you consider you get almost double the weekly wage for driving a bus along Princes Street - no roadside bombs to contend with there.

Monetary reward is of course secondary when you consider the immense pride soldiers have in their regiment. Ask any soldier whether he wants to be known as a Royal Scot or Black Watch, as opposed to the Royal Regiment of Scotland - you will get a rapid response.

A soldier's job is to protect and serve his country - our soldiers should be able to do just that - in the regiment that they signed up for. Let them decide what is best for them - put it to a vote, Mr Reid.

JEFF DUNCAN, Dundee

Infantry cuts Lost legions One nation No other option

Much has been said recently about the poor recruiting record of Scottish regiments over the last few years. Much has also been forgotten.

In my opinion, the infantry in Scotland is under strength because: one year a civilian firm of headhunters was told to recruit for the infantry in Scotland as a trial. Two soldiers joined the Black Watch in six months. The trial was abandoned. In the next two years training places were limited for financial reasons. Then came the Iraq war, which caused some to question the desirability of a military career.

Now we have the formation of a large regiment without those really important ties to the local community. At the same time, recruiting targets have been cut by 30 per cent when the infantry is to be reduced from 40 battalions to 36. What are the ministry and the government up to? We need soldiers on the ground more than ever before, but the MoD is reducing the size of the infantry, while the government seems to have the same foreign and home policies.

The decision could be reversed, and the formation of large regiments, not supported by the vast majority of those serving, should at least be delayed for a few years until the situation in the world becomes clearer.

GARRY BARNETT, Brigadier (Retired), Colonel, The Black Watch 1992 - 2003

Lost legions

In debating the question, it is hard to fathom where more Scottish troops might come from. It should be remembered that we have already lost 1. The Camerons (Scottish Rifles); 2. The Highland Light Infantry, amalgamated with the Royal Scots Fusiliers to form the Royal Highland Fusiliers; 3. The Seaforth Highlanders, amalgamated with the Cameron Highlanders to form the Queen's Own Highlanders; 4. The Queen's Own Highlanders, amalgamated with the Gordon Highlanders to form the Highlanders; and now it is proposed to amalgamate The Royal Scots with the King's Own Scottish Borderers. This is a total loss of five regiments.

Why has the Scottish Division moved from being the best-recruited division of the army to the worst? The answer is twofold: 1, the reluctance of young men to join the proposed Royal Regiment of Scotland rather than their local family regiment; 2, the removal of recruit training from Scotland to Deepcut or Catterick.

The proposed cuts are an act of vandalism which is causing serious worry about our ability to maintain national security in the face of increased threats worldwide.

DONALD FAIRGRIEVE, St Boswells

One nation

Scotland did not make an independent commitment to invade Iraq. Our troops were sent out as part of the British Army, because it was the British Prime Minister that decided Britain was to invade.

It's not like we could ever just decide that we're pulling our troops out, but the English, Welsh and Irish boys are staying. Then where would we be? It's not really a regional debate, it's something, in light of the attacks in London, that must be done as a United Kingdom.

NICOLE KEENAN, Motherwell

No other option

I think Scotland now has a moral obligation to see out its involvement. It owes this much to the people of the country the UK government are supposedly "stabilising". Whether we should be there in the first place is debatable, but if sending more troops now means a quicker end to the problems, then I can't see another option.

SAM CLARK, Birmingham