corrente

Not that, in normal times, there'd be anything wrong with that. But let's connect the dots:

Dot number one: The second example (Xan got the first of "sit down strikes" by the reserves:

The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq (news - web sites) who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape.

Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner, causing a temporary breakdown in discipline."
(via AP)

Of course. "Temporary." And why's the equipment so bad, anyhow? I thought the troops got the best?
Dot number two: Calling in units from the UK to watch our back south of Baghdad:

Plans to redeploy UK troops to the south of Baghdad to assist US operations have sparked warnings from opposition MPs.

UK troops have been asked to fill in behind US soldiers, it is understood.

On Saturday, Shadow Defence Secretary Nicholas Soames joined opposition calls for a Commons statement on the government's intentions.

Mr Soames told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the UK must have an "equal say" in US plans to defeat insurgents.

He added: "The question of chain of command is an extremely important one. I've no objection to British troops serving under American command but it needs to be extremely clearly worked out.

"The rules of engagement must be very clear because they may well be different to those which the regiment would have used in Basra."

(via BBC)

Very interesting. The Kos diarist who broke this in the states writes:

For your side the implications are clear - you haven't got enough resources to conduct operations you want to carry out but on our side one of the big concerns is chain of command. While the fact that the troops concerned were due to finish their tour before Christmas doesn't help. Nor the fact they're the Black Watch, one of the most famous and prestigious in British rmy history. Nor the fact they're from Scotland which with devolution and a general antipathy to all things Blairite hasn't taken the news well.

Of course, with the news organizations leaving Iraq (who can blame them) and Allawi clamping down too, it's hard to get a good read on the real story.

But the question has to be asked: Has Bush's conduct of the war made "break downs in discipline" much more widespread than we're being told? Is that the reason we have to call on the UK for help?