Blair Sees Revolt Over Troop Move

Prime Minister Tony Blair faced a revolt by lawmakers Wednesday over a U.S. request to redeploy some British troops closer to Baghdad.

Forty-five lawmakers, all but one of them members of Blair's Labor Party, signed a motion demanding a vote in the House of Commons on whether the request should be granted. Many are suspicious the request is politically motivated and designed to bolster President Bush before presidential elections on Nov. 2.

"We are about to enter a period of increased activity in Iraq. This is nothing to do with the American elections," Blair told the House of Commons. "It has everything to do with the Iraqi elections in January."

American military commanders asked Britain on Oct. 10 to reposition a small number of soldiers, now stationed in southern Iraq, to the U.S.-controlled sector farther north, to free up American soldiers to intensify their assault on insurgents in Iraq.

The government has not said how many troops might be redeployed, or to where. But military sources have said that if the request was granted, Britain's reserve regiment, the 650-strong First Battalion Black Watch, which is stationed near the southern port city of Basra, would be the obvious choice.

Britain has some 9,000 troops in Iraq, operating in the relatively peaceful area around Basra. Sixty-eight British soldiers have been killed in Iraq, compared with more than 1,000 U.S. troops. Sending British soldiers into the U.S.-controlled sector, where there are more attacks by insurgents, carries a risk of higher casualties and would be politically sensitive for Blair.

The deeply unpopular war in Iraq has damaged Blair's credibility and trust ratings and many lawmakers are suspicious that the timing of the request is linked to U.S. presidential elections.

The 44 Labor lawmakers signing the motion represent around a tenth of Labor's 407 members of Parliament. Although statistically small, the number includes more than a dozen backbenchers usually loyal to the government.

Regardless of the number of signatories, such a motion cannot force the government to hold a vote. The device is typically used by lawmakers to register concern and prompt debate.

Labor backbencher Marsha Singh urged Blair to refuse the U.S. request. He said the "hole dug over Iraq is big enough" and suggested it was time Blair listened to the British people and "high time we stopped digging."

Blair said he did not agree.

"I believe we are right to be in Iraq. I believe we can be immensely proud of the contribution our British troops have made there," he responded.

Several lawmakers have asked why America, which has some 130,000 troops in Iraq, needs British troops to plug a gap.

"I think it is important to understand this. Although it is true that there are 130,000 American troops ... not all of those troops are suitable for the particular tasks they are being called upon to do," Blair said. "It is important that we recognize that there is an enormous amount of cover that the Americans provide us."

Blair has insisted the request came through the military chain of command and not as a personal plea from Mr. Bush.

The senior U.K. officer in Iraq on Wednesday also said the request was based on military considerations. A reconnaissance team will assess conditions in the area, before ministers decide whether to grant the request.

"The request is in response to the situation on the ground. There's been a spike in insurgent activity as a result of the Ramadan period," Gen. John McColl told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "The military commanders have made a request to deploy forces to meet that situation and from a theater perspective, it is reasonable and sensible to meet that request."

Labor lawmaker Andrew Mackinlay, a loyal backbencher, warned Blair not to test the patience of his lawmakers, many of whom are still seething over the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"We have to say thus far and no further," Mackinlay said earlier Wednesday. "We have given 110 percent and I think they are just asking too much of us."

Blair has weathered a chain of crises over the Iraq war, which was always less popular in Britain than in the United States. The invasion tested already strained ties between the moderate Blair and his party's left wing, and added to an impression among some in Britain that Blair is too close to Mr. Bush.

Even before the war began, Labor members in large numbers rebelled against Blair on key votes. According to the Bob Woodward book "Plan of Attack," Mr. Bush feared Blair's government would fall and repeatedly gave Blair the option of withdrawing his troops from the invasion force. Blair refused.

Since the war started, Blair's troubles have multiplied as weapons hunters continued to come up empty.

U.S. inspectors recently concluded that while Saddam Hussein intended to regain weapons of mass destruction and had violated U.N. sanctions, he did not have weapons stockpiles or programs, his capabilities had deteriorated and he wanted WMD as a deterrent to Iran — not to share with terrorists.

The British case for war began unraveling last year, when a document backing the government's case for war turned out to have been plagiarized from a dated student thesis.

Another document, which claimed that Iraq had the ability to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, touched off a huge feud between Downing Street and the BBC.

"The beeb" reported the claim had been "sexed-up" by Blair's aides; Blair vehemently denied it. The source for the story, weapons expert David Kelly, committed suicide.

Subsequent reports said the BBC had misreported the story, but also concluded that Blair and his staff had stretched the intelligence on Iraq to the limits of credibility.