Is it really a positive sign that the Brits are withdrawing their troops from Iraq?

Question

I saw Dick Cheney reacting to the news that the Brits were withdrawing their troops from Iraq by saying that it was a positive sign. He said (paraphrasing) that it was a sign that the increase in U.S. troops is working and the new strategy is succeeding. Even after hearing his argument, I still don't understand how the Brits withdrawal has any correlation to the increase in U.S. troops and the new strategy. I hate to sound cynical, but it kind of reminded me of how they kept telling us that we were winning the war when just about every independent group came to the opposite conclusion. Can anyone please explain how the British withdrawal of troops is a sign that the new strategy is working?

Please don't turn this into a Bush/Liberal bashing contest on your answers. I am genuinely interested in knowing if the withdrawal is a positive thing and would like to hear your thoughts, not your attacks.

Answer 1

the britts leaving isnt good we have to fill their space . the britts have courage but the media has made it a circus for both nations so bush is going it alone from the looks of this . we are in a whirl wind but we have to win

Answer 2

America has bought and broken Iraq -- now the USA is paying for it. And, not trillions yet (it's now only just over a trillion), but it will be trillions in another two years at present rate of expenditure. The USA is there to stay, for the foreseeable future. A recent news report suggests that the military will be there until 2016 which is probably on the low side. Here's the irony: the Sunnis, who until recently have been bitterly opposed to US forces in Iraq, have now done a 180. Now, they want the US to have troops there for as long as necessary; the Shiites there are too much of a threat for the Sunnis to handle, despite the insurgency. And, in case you don't know, Saddam was Sunni who had been bought by the CIA in the 1970s. Now, the USA is quite ready to oblige about staying: not only for guaranteed acces to the oil, but also to maintain the not-so-secret bases constructed across Iraq. Grunts come last in the administration's concern. Go ask the maimed veterans who have been ripped off, not only of arms and legs, but also the allowances they should be getting.

Answer 3

As it has become increasingly obvious that the war in Iraq is a lost cause, the British have analyzed the situation and come to the conclusion not to continue with the senseless idea that you can change the culture of a country by force.

There are many cruel and unjust leaders in the world. We cannot change every country to our way of thinking and living. Saddam Hussein could have been gotten rid of by other means.
Or, if it was imperative that he had to be dethroned it should have been bomb and leave, let the people put their country back together.

Answer 4

The British military has done an excellent job securing the areas where they're deployed. As a result of that work, they're able to relinquish control to the Iraqis in certain areas, thereby allowing some of their soldiers to return home. It is, indeed, good news. Let's hope that the Iraqi security forces can do as good a job as the Brits did.

Answer 5

I read an article that stated that the areas where the British were are the ones that are now in Iraqi hands and there is not that much violence there now so they are not needed there. That sounds a little positive. The problem spots, Baghdad, is where the US is. SOOOO, why aren't the British troops now going to help out where the trouble spots are?

Answer 6

Yes

Answer 7

no it is just the queen pulling rank on tony blair, to prevent her grandson from getting killed there.

Answer 8

Yes, it's great.