is the British withdrawl from Iraq a sign of defeat??

Question

if not, how can you prove it?

comment to Mochrie:

well, they lost personnel, money and respect. plus, they were humelated in terms of millitary defeat and political stress (Iran's capture of vetrans)

The British are free people. correct.
but, the government put the armed forces in the wrong 'swamp' ..

PLUS: what about morals?

and,
Iraqi are NOT insurgents.. but insurgents ARE Iraqis...

and insurgency does not necessarley represents a nation, but a national army does..

Answer 1

A sign of wisdom.
Screw "W" and his oil war.

Answer 2

How can you prove defeat when you can't even define what victory should be?. Remember that the original premise for justifying the invasion of Iraq were the WMDs. When no WMD's were found, the premise was changed to removing Saddam from power. Now, Saddam is long dead. But why are we still there?. Sectarian conflict is now the reason given for justifying the presence of American and British troops there. But what can a foreign army do about a civil war?. Whose side would the foreign army support and fight along with?. The Sunnis'?. The Shias'?. The Kurds'?. Just who exactly is the enemy this time?.

How can one achieve victory when the goals are changing everytime?. The only way to achieve the goals is to clearly define them in the first place. This, the British had set during the last two years. These were about reducing the level of violence to a certain degree, and to train the Iraqi military to be able to operate on their own. The British did those for the last two years. Now, the British were confident that those targets were met. Sure, there are still occasional car bombings and sectarian killings in Basra, but these can be effectively dealt by the Iraqi military themselves. Maintaining the peace and order in Basra had finally been turned over to the Iraqis. The British are now starting to withdraw.

Is this a victory?. Yes, considering that the British had met the the goals that they'd set for themselves. In this case, it is mission accomplished for the British troops. However, many Americans might consider that a sign of British defeat. But then, the Americans had set their goals differently from the British. So, the claims of victory and defeat would be subjective.

Answer 3

It's a long overdue sign that the Government has at long last come to it's senses and has finally taken onboard the underlying feeling of the British population.

The original "facts" for invasion were WMD. This "fact " has now been largely forgotten thanks to the political propoganda machine churning out "Saddam was evil & we got him". At no time prior to invasion was the removal of Saddam mentioned as a reason for the invasion. This was merely an afterthought in an attempt to justify invasion after no WMD were found.

They say that all political leaders need a war to boost their popularity. Unfortunately this was a war based on lies and against an enemy you cannot identify therefore totally unwinnable from the outset.

It is not defeat - simply stalemate. Whether troops pull out next year or in ten years time the insurgents will still be there hiding amongst the population.

It is pointless sacrificing more lives in a country where the vast majority of the population have no concept of democracy nor the will to see it introduced. Whether allied forces are there or not the Iraqi's will simply continue to annihalate each other until one sect becomes dominant.

As for the withdrawal of British troops I take the annoncement with tongue in cheek as simply a carrot prior to an election. There is no guarantee that it will happen.

If it were fact then my son - presently on deployment until March 2008 in Afghanistan would not be telling me that he already knows when & where his next deployment will be - 7 month tour Basra early 2009

Answer 4

No. The US troop surge and offensives have been massive successes, so there is simply no need for the British to maintain so many troops in that area anymore. My cousin's division covered about 200 square miles in under a month with large numbers of terrorist captures and losses.

If you're referring to Basra, the British pulled out of that city because the Iraqi government claimed that they're confident that they can at least protect that city themselves, so the British manpower was not needed anymore.

After finding 700+ serin gas warheads in an underground bunker, and the liberals "coincidentally" altering the definition of WMD to be nuclear only, I'd say that we've completed 3 of our 4 tasks anyway.

> Find Biological or Chemical Weapons
> Take down Saddam
> Install a Democracy in Iraq
> Locate bin-Laden (Pending)

Answer 5

As we (the British) went over to assist in the bringing down of a dictator who thought he was above humanity to first assist in the stopping of the dictator and then as a "policing assistant force" for a country who for years had been oppressed I feel that the removal of OUR lads and lasses coming home show that there is no more for us to do over in Iraq. Enough blood has flowed on all sides in the name of freedom.
The Iraq people had been under an oppressive dictator for far too long and with his capture came euphoric freedom which I feel led to a lot of untimely deaths.
To ask the question debases everything the dead died for and when I put the question (to a very very close blood relation) "Why did you volunteer the second time." The reply came, very quickly, without hesitation "I want to help them get the peace they deserve."

Please do not debase that reply with your contemptible question. The people that are coming home and the people how have been there have lost friends and family and the young new Iraq will eventually, hopefully become a peaceful place because of the British and the American troops.

This was not a Vietnam nor Korean outcome.

Answer 6

British withdrawal from Iraq
is a sign that there is still emaculate intelligence
at work within the British people !!

Proving (?) that a withdrawal is NOT a defeat
is simple --- the British are still a free people
they are not subdued by any "enemy" --- they were
not Ran out of Iraq by any actions, military conquests,
or defeats of ANY type !! They have chosen to leave a pointless, ongoing loop of cat-and-mouse that serves no purpose but to propetuate itself for the good of the military / industrial complex !!!!
PROVE THAT ISN'T SO !!!!

Answer 7

It is a sign that at last the rabble in Westminster are coming to their senses and are taking notice of the U.K.electorate. It is an illegal war started by America for the benefit of America, and we should never have been there in the first place. We should pull out completely now and let the Americans get on with it.

Answer 8

I wouldn't say its a sign of defeat. They did their job, defeated Saddam, re-trained the army who will now look after Basra. Yes they did loose equipment and personnel but that happens during conflicts. Now its up to the Iraqis to make a better life for themselves.

YOUR A SAD MAN!! check this out

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhcJoEVrZu8GKiDbgPW2y20gBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20071009134312AARfkYr

Answer 9

If its a defeat the British are not going to admit it. If its not a defeat the US are not going to agree because that would mean they've been going about it in the wrong way. I personally don't think its a defeat but that may well be because its too early to really know the answer to the question.

Answer 10

They went in with nothing to win. What would have been a win:? What is a loss? What were they even doing there in the first place? It seems like the only objective was to follow the US who had no objective. Comming back out is the best available result.

Answer 11

Withdrawal is a sign of common sense and legality.

The occupation of Iraq was illegal so withdrawal is the correct action to take yet withdrawal allone wont repair all the lives lost and damage done by this illegal war.