Would conditions in Iraq be different if British soldiers took the place of Americans?

Question

I'm just wondering if Iraqis see the British differently from the Americans, and if so, would the difference in personalities or just country of origin make a difference? Do you think things would be better or worse or neither?

Answer 1

yes, the British understand Arabs more since they used to occupy the region for decades, they manage a combination of diplomacy, bribes, and show of force when needed, the US think that force is the only way, plus the hatred most Arabs feel towards the USA because of its blind support of Israel, while most European countries maintained a somewhat more moderate position.

Answer 2

I doubt it. The major problem is that they view this as an occupation, rather than help. Whether it is the Americans or the British (or any other country you want to go with), they'll see it as an occupation and control of their country. I believe that the only ones that may make conditions better are Iraqi soldiers in charge, but they are severely undertrained; and then you also have the problem of Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds. Will Sunnis see Shiites and decide that even if they are Iraqi, they are an enemy and civil war breaks out? How about the other way around? And how do the Kurds fit into things? I think until all these questions are answered, fighting and insurgencies and civil war will abound until the Iraqis decide peace and safety are better choices than political and religious infighting; but don't expect that too soon.

Answer 3

Conditions will be the same because none of the main reasons for the sad condition will change:
1- Solidiers without aim or target , only want to make money and enjoy.
2- Soldiers who avoid combat so that they are not hurt , killing from a distance anything that is moving , a tree, a child , a cat - raping any woman ( perhaps a man or a child) passing by.
3- calculating days to reurn home with the dollars saved( originally of Iraqi naft).
This my dear the real gloomy dark situation that the western press do not present.
My dear the problem is not the nationality of soldiers but to do what in Iraq ?

Answer 4

I doubt you would see an differnce in the conditions or feelings towards an occupying force. The sentiment is anti-Western not neccesarily anti-American. If you look at a history of region you will see much of the anti-Western sentiment stems broken promises and political interference by the British and French after World War 2. The US is a realtively new player when it comes to the problems in the Middle East.

Answer 5

We would be doing great if it wasn't for the liberals. People dont get understand you cant turn the military into a police force.

But if the British took over, they would be under the same political pressure and use there troops the same way. So there would be no difference.

Answer 6

The British would've taken it like we (Canada) are doing in Afghanistan. We camp in secluded area's far from civilization. We are not on the streets and come whenever someone needs help. We're rescue people. I think it's a better approach because the Afghan's like what we're doing and the Iraqi's don't like what the U.S. is doing.

Answer 7

I have not have been given any theory who you're concerning. No conservative I surely have ever person-friendly has ever pronounced Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq. We defeated Saddam and bumped off him. as quickly as we wipe out Al Qaeda, we've then taken a considerable step to triumphing continuously.

Answer 8

There are british soldiers in Iraq and they get killed just the same. Even the iraqi people are being killed by insurgents. suicide bombers and ieds don't care who you are. If they don't care about their own people they certainly don't care about the u.s. or british.

Answer 9

Much the same. I don't think Iraqi's differentiate between the 2, they are all just coalition to them.

Answer 10

Considering the recent plot to blow up several jets leaving Britian and eclipse the death toll of 9/11 I would have to say no.