Them and U.S. (2)

The news yesterday and today has been dominated by first speculation and then confirmation by defence secretary Geoff Hoon that Britain have been asked by the U.S. to send troops to assist the U.S. forces outside of the British-controlled area in the south. The Black Watch regiment, made up of rock-hard Scotsmen, are likely to be deployed to Iskandariyah and Latifiyah, towns just outside Baghdad. The soldiers will be working with U.S. marines and be under U.S. command, facts which are causing consternation in the British Army because of the difference in their tactical approaches. The argument goes that U.S. marines tend to favour a rapid, no-holds-barred approach - and normally have the firepower to back it up - whereas the British, owing largely to their financial inferiority to the American forces, prefer a slower and more methodical set of procedures.
Whatever you believe regarding the soldiers' differences, it cannot be denied that this fresh deployment of America's greatest allies comes at an expedient time for the Bush administration, whose lack of allied assistance has been the focus of much criticism by presidential candidate John Kerry. Many of the papers (2)- and some politicians- have labelled the request a nakedly political move coming as it does so soon before the U.S. election. Hoon countered by nervously stating in the commons that the only election this would support was the Iraqi election scheduled for January. But of course, he would say that.
It is a measure of how astonishingly cynical we have become about New Labour's decisions that it is perfectly believable that they would deploy British troops in order to help President Bush's election campaign. The press, the opposition, the anti-war MPs and the electorate are all perfectly willing to believe that our government would put British lives at risk for nothing more than political credit with our allies. For this I suppose one can blame Hutton, Butler and all the rest but I find it hard to believe that our governments are that machiavellian. Devious, certainly, but not evil.
However, what did strike me was the inevitability of Hoon's announcement. There was never any possibility but that the troops would be deployed. Sketch cartoonists like to portray Blair as Bush's lapdog but here he proved himself more of a snarling alsatian. Granted, we are the U.S.A's main ally and our agreement to go to war was to support their troops. Is there, though, a point where we can say 'no more'? At what stage will the government be able to say no to the U.S.A? When they invade Iran? When they nuke North Korea? We are a country whose political autonomy is largely within our own heads when it comes to foreign policy, and so our leaders have proved again. The political fallout if, for whatever reason, Hoon and Blair had refused assistance to the U.S. troops might have been small or it might have been huge but they are too afraid to risk it. This is the first of the U.S.A's requests. It will not be the last.