Britain seeks legal resolution for deployment after June 30

LONDON -- Britain warned yesterday that it will need a firm legal framework based on a U.N. resolution or a deal with the new Iraq government in order to keep its troops operating in the country after a June 30 transfer of sovereignty.

At the same time, army chiefs reportedly have been urging Prime Minister Tony Blair to put off announcing that Britain will replace the withdrawing Spanish forces with about 1,700 fresh British troops in and around the Shi'ite flash point of Najaf.

"The senior British military are strongly opposed to taking over the Spanish areas of command or sending further troops," an unnamed senior British source told the Guardian newspaper.

The newspaper said they are seeking assurances that by the time new forces arrive -- mainly infantry but also elements of an air-assault unit -- their position will not have been made precarious by precipitate U.S. military actions.

Asked at a press conference about the prospects for future British forces operating in Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw supplied a carefully phrased answer.

"I can give an absolute assurance that British forces will operate strictly within the law," he said, adding that the legal basis of their presence "depends on the nature of the caretaker government and the wording of the new U.N. resolution."

Prime Minister Tony Blair sought earlier this week to quash speculation about a new deployment to Iraq, saying at a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: "The advice that we have is that we have sufficient troops to do the job."

But, he acknowledged, "We keep the question of troops under review at all times."

British military lawyers and generals privately have been advising the government to postpone any increase in troop strength until a new Iraqi government takes power and the legal basis for their presence is clarified.

Otherwise, the lawyers fear, their troops could be accused of war crimes.

Behind the legal argument lies increasing military criticism of the U.S. tactics in putting down insurgencies and the lack of an obvious plan to restore order and establish economic and political progress.

British generals fear that tough American action in places such as Najaf will serve mainly to infuriate the population and that British troops will be "left to pick up the pieces."

"It will be very difficult for the British to go in if there's already been a major confrontation in Najaf," retired Gen. Mike Rose told a British television news program aired on Channel 4.

Mr. Blair defended the American tactics in Fallujah in Parliament on Wednesday, saying, "It is right that the American forces try to make sure that order is restored" in the city.

But Gen. Rose, who commanded the U.N. protection force in Bosnia-Herzegovina, remains very close to the top brass in the British armed forces and often reflects views they cannot declare officially.

He said British troops would replace the Spanish in Najaf only if they obtained assurances that U.S. forces would not attack the central parts of the city, home to the shrine of Imam Ali, the holiest Shi'ite site.

Gen. Rose said the legal status of the troops after June 30 "poses tremendous problems. At the moment, we are falling between two stools."

He said it was vital to sign a Status of Forces Agreement, "including clearly set-out limits to our use of force" and to use that force sparingly.

"We should use military force -- but within very strict limitations. My advice is to stand back," he said.

He said the United States was "good at nation-building," but its forces were more geared up for warfare, "at which they are excellent."