LONDON, March 28 -- British field commanders are echoing some of the same criticisms as their American counterparts about the overall military strategy in Iraq and the accuracy of intelligence, according to informed sources and analysts, but have been less vocal in their complaints.

The commanders did not anticipate the level of resistance from Iraqi soldiers and the population at large in southern Iraq, where the British effort is concentrated, an informed defense source said.

British and American intelligence reports had suggested that the south, dominated by Muslim Shiites with a long history of repression by President Saddam Hussein's government, "would fall into our hands," as the source put it.

Instead, British forces, including the 1st Armored Division, have stopped outside Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, engaging Iraqi forces when they attack but avoiding entering the city of more than 1 million.

This pause has kept the British from racing north toward the city of Kut to support the American drive to Baghdad, as was originally planned, the source said. As a result, important momentum has been lost.

British commanders are also disappointed that the Americans went ahead with the invasion without first securing Turkish approval to open a second front with Kurdish strongholds in northern Iraq, the source said, putting more pressure on the southern campaign.

So far, British criticism has been quiet in comparison to the dissent emerging in U.S. ranks. Analysts said that is partly because British military culture is more deferential to its civilian leadership than its American counterpart. And it is also because the British have had a somewhat easier campaign in southern Iraq, where their supply lines and flanks are less exposed than those of the U.S. forces rushing 300 miles to Baghdad.

"I think the U.K. forces are still feeling reasonably confident and not too exposed," said Timothy Garden, former air marshal of the Royal Air Force. "Basra is going very slowly. They are reasonably experienced in dealing with small groups of terrorists in built-up areas, and there's a belief you don't rush these things."

Britain has sent 45,000 troops to the Gulf -- more than half the army's total manpower, according to the Ministry of Defense. There are reports that the British will be asked to send in more forces. But Gen. Mike Jackson, the army chief of staff, said at a news conference here that his forces were already stretched because nearly 19,000 have been left home to cover for sporadic walkouts by Britain's firefighters union.

"We're on a surge basis . . . [which] is not sustainable over a long period of time," Jackson said.

Still, he insisted that the campaign against Hussein has not become bogged down. "Armies cannot keep moving forever without stopping from time to time to regroup, to ensure their supplies are up," he said, adding, "The conventional fight, if you like, with the Republican Guard is not too far away, I suspect."

Garden said the British military establishment had originally been reluctant to endorse the Iraqi campaign because they considered it risky and unnecessary. "Among my former military colleagues, not a single one thought this was a good idea," he said. "And almost all were prepared to say so in public."

The problem now, said Garden, is whether to rush forward to besiege Baghdad or wait for reinforcements. Such a halt, however temporary, would further stall the campaign's momentum. "It might even look like a retreat," he said.

Britain has lost 22 men so far in the conflict. Two of the casualties became a source of controversy between the government and the media here. At their joint press conference at Camp David on Thursday, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair said the two soldiers had been executed after their capture. Video footage of the corpses was shown on Iraqi television and the Al-Jazeera network. "If anyone needed any further evidence of the depravity of Saddam Hussein's regime, this atrocity provides it," Blair said.

But today, the Daily Mirror, a vociferously anti-war tabloid, quoted Nina Allsopp, sister of one of the dead soldiers, as saying that the army had told her family her brother had died in action when the Land Rover he and his companion had been driving in was ambushed. "It makes a big difference to us knowing that he died quickly," the Mirror quoted her as saying. "We can't understand why people are lying about what happened."

Blair's official spokesman backtracked, saying, "Since we don't have the two bodies, we can't be absolutely sure." But he said that the fact the bodies had been discovered at a distance from the vehicle and stripped of their flak jackets and helmets suggested execution.

At today's news briefing in London, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said he regretted any hurt caused the families, but officials also attacked the media for allegedly harassing victims' relatives.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company