So why are the British troops leaving Iraq?

Question

According to Bush, Cheney and Rice, this is good news. They claim that because the Brits have stabilized Basra and turned over security to Iraqi forces, the British soldiers can now redeploy. But wait a minute. A recent Pentagon report on the stability of Iraq lists Basra second only to Baghdad for violence and insurgent activity. Basra is named as a “Red Zone”. The British once had over 40,000 troops in Iraq. That number will sink to a few thousand by the end of the year. I don’t get it. The Iraqi War is a coalition effort, right? Instead of redeploying their troops, shouldn’t Britain, our most valued ally, be repositioning their troops in Baghdad instead? Shouldn’t they be supporting the US effort? The president wants to send an additional 21,000 troops, while our #1 ally has reduced its forces from 40,000 to less than 5,000. What am I missing?

Answer 1

What you are missing is the fact that the Prime Minister, while he values the relationship "across the pond", can see full well that he is loosing local support at a astonishing rate and I would bet that he is getting a LOT of pressure to "disengage" form members in his own party.

One other factor - how many people (proportionately) does that represent? I'll wager that no other country came close.

Answer 2

A brain for one! The British never had that many there...LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain is sending around 1,200 extra troops to Iraq, in addition to the 11,000 already there, the UK defense ministry has announced. In 2003 Basra was differnt than any other Iraqi town and had the same problems as the rest. In the last year the British have given control over to the iraqi force just like they were supposed to, just like the Dem's wanted them todo, and now that they have done it, they whine about it! Go figure! They are now redeployinig their troops to Afghanastan, though they still have a presence in Iraq! Dude get over it that its working!

Answer 3

Get some facts first. It is an American war that Blair (the poodle) joined in of his own accord. Americans like to see it as a war for all but it is not. Bush increased the Afghanistan burden on the British Army so something has to give. We dont have that many soldiers to frat around with.

Answer 4

the US, as the largest importer and consumer of oil in the world, has long term strategic interests in Iraq. Britain also has this sort of interets in that region. It seems to me, when the situation was good, your ally wanted to take a free ride. When you're in trouble, it certainly wants to leave before it burns its own hands. Never trust an ally. Truman or Johnson once said:"There are no permenant friends. There are only permanent national interests."

Answer 5

Oh you poor ignorant and deluded soul. What exactly are you missing?

It's as simple as 1, 2, 3

1. You can fool some of the people some of the time.
2. You can fool most of the people most of the time.
3. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Unlike the deluded gung-ho American republican mindset which will not be voted into office in 2008, the British mindset have not been fooled by this cretin we have as a prime minister.
The moronic imbecile has been shown for what he is; namely a liar, a liability to his party and a huge embarrassment to the British people.

Sooner or later, even the emperor's new clothes resemble rags and tatters.

In my heart of hearts I am praying the Americans will invade or attack Iran. You will quickly see how special this so called special relationship is. American foreign policy is what the British electorate now see as 'damaged goods'. A new prime minister wouldn't touch your Bush with a barge pole.

From now on in, you are on your own....enjoy basking in the glory.

Answer 6

Unlike Bush, the government of Britain is finally realizing the error of their ways. Tony Blair is unable to maintain the carte blanche when it comes to using British forces inside of Iraq.

Mission accomplished?

Answer 7

basra is realtively calmer than baghdad and the british are smart enough to understand that their presence would be inflaming more insurgency

instead they are moving theor tropps to afghanistan , where the real war on terror is being fought

iraq was not even a radical islamic state when america invaded it and not connected to terrorism in any manner , well done dr bush

Answer 8

War fatigue is weighing heavy on both the Brits and Americans... The Brits have a bit of a better exit strategy than we do, and unfortunately we're quagmired there with or without them.

Answer 9

The british are leaving Iraq? Didn't I here just today that Prince
Harry and his military unit are heade for Iraq?

Yes I did it was on the morning news.

Answer 10

The reason they are leaving is because they realize they should not be there. They do not want to come right out and say Mr. President you were wrong because it could jeprodize their relations. He knows that his troops should not be over there hopefully Bush will wake up but that will never happen!