BRITAIN

BRITAIN
The Times, London, Oct. 18: It has been reported that the United States had asked for about 650 British troops to be transferred to an area south of Baghdad, freeing the 24th Military Expeditionary Force for other duties, almost certainly fighting in the Sunni Triangle. While there had not been an official response from Downing Street, approval is likely to be forthcoming. The subsequent response has been little short of hysterical.
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defense secretary and emblem of Tory mediocrity, while not denouncing the idea, has given warning that it might be perceived as a "political gesture" by the prime minister to Mr. Bush before the U.S. presidential election next month.
The Liberal Democrats have swiftly condemned the idea that British soldiers formally might be under American command.
Juvenile and demeaning
Such criticism is ridiculous. Furthermore, the claim that British forces are being switched around in an effort by Mr. Blair to boost the president's re-election attempt is juvenile and demeaning. It is the Iraqi polls in January, not the U.S. ballot next month, that is behind the timing of this redeployment. It is essential that a proper poll can be conducted in cities such as Fallujah, if at all possible, so that the will of the entire Iraqi people can be recorded at the ballot box. It makes sense for some seasoned British troops to take over certain responsibilities near Baghdad allowing the best U.S. soldiers to drive Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and his ilk from the country.
BRITAIN
The Guardian, London, Oct. 18: If ever there was an example of mission creep, the request from the U.S. for the redeployment of some British troops in support of Americans south of Baghdad, is as dangerous as they come.
If agreed, the British troops would be the first to have operated in direct support of the Americans -- and the first to have been engaged inside the Sunni area south of Baghdad. No wonder senior military officials have been voicing concern. Deployment would mark a major escalation in Britain's involvement in the occupation of Iraq.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, was right to warn yesterday that if British troops were deployed in the U.S. sector, they could find themselves associated with the more aggressive tactics used by the Americans. The last major exercise by the U.S. against Fallujah left 1,000 civilians dead and caused uproar in and outside Iraq over the heavy-handed tactics of American forces.
Electoral interests
One of many unexplained factors is why the U.S. needs 650 British troops. Currently there are 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. True, many of them are reservists rather than fully-trained professionals, but do they really not have 650 properly trained replacements among their 138,000-strong occupation force? This has prompted speculation among senior British military circles that the request is prompted more by President Bush's electoral interests rather than military needs.
ARGENTINA
La Nacion, Buenos Aires, Oct. 18: The Russian government's decision to send parliament a bill to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has been well received at the United Nations and the European Union. Although ratification by Russia's legislature would be a sign of clear progress, it would still fall short of fully implementing Kyoto's provisions since the United States is the principal producer of harmful (greenhouse) gas emissions, and Washington hasn't yet altered its unfavorable stance toward the treaty.
The Kyoto Protocol represents a milestone in the slow path toward assuming global responsibility for stewardship of the planet. The modest goals it sets out still haven't been put in place, and yet environmental deterioration worsens daily.
Environmental goals
The progress signified by Moscow's ratification of the treaty would help advance the environmental goals outlined in the treaty. It is also would signal to developing countries that they should firmly commit themselves to the fight against the degradation of the atmosphere.
EGYPT
Egyptian Gazette, Cairo, Oct. 19: Disastrous Iraq policy is proving President George W. Bush's Achilles heel. It may eventually cost him his job at the Nov. 2 election.
Haunted by the mounting failings in Iraq and their repercussions on his re-election fortunes, Bush is desperate for a U-turn in Iraq which will convince skeptical Americans that he did the right thing by invading and occupying the country. With his presidential race with Democratic challenger John Kerry snarled up in a dead heat, Bush is raising the stakes that Iraq will emerge as an epitome of widely hyped democracy in the Middle East. For this, he pins big hopes on elections due to be held in Iraq in January.
Hanging by a thread
Unfortunately, the fate of the vote, the first since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, is hanging by a thread. American officials are split over whether the election will be partially or wholly staged in Iraq. The Bush administration seems at pains to pitch its policy to the Iraqis themselves in the hope of winning their hearts and minds.
In doing this, Bush thinks, his Iraq mission will be accomplished. Iraqis, who have felt the brunt of the American occupation, are enticed by the prospect of political and economic liberalization. This prospect is, however, far from succeeding. Anti-American insurgency is mounting. It is expected to peak as the election schedule nears.