Removal of British Troops from Iraq?

Question

What does everyone think about the removal of more British troops by Gordon Brown from Iraq? This will reduce the British presence in Iraq to half of what it is now. How will the American troops cope without the support from allied forces. 1,000 British troops will be returning home in the next few months. A further 2,000 will leave in early 2008, with the expected removal of a large amount of Australian troops in Iraw "apparently" set for early 2008 as well. What would George Bush be thinking about the war now? This will put a tight squeeze on the war on terror.

I agree that troops other than American troops should no longer be required there. I'm sure there is mounting pressure on foreign leaders to remove their soldiers, I was just commenting that it almost seems that not only has the war fallen apart in a global sense but also in a military sense.

Answer 1

I don't think Bush thought it through in the beginning, Either that or he was fed B/s from his Lackey's. The head scientist (An Australian at that time) said on public radio that there were NO Nuclear weapons in Iraq. No one listened and Bush charged ahead anyway with our Johnny close behind him.
Now look at the mess we have created. The people I feel sorry for are the Families in the States that have lost loved ones in this senseless war.

Answer 2

The stated intention in Iraq was revealed in a US Department of State memo in 1947. The memo declared that the area (Middle East) was a stupendous source of strategic power. The reason is simple: Oil, discovered in Mesapotamia (Iraq) around a hundred years ago. It's not that America and Britain want the oil, they don't, in fact it's better for all concerned that the oil stays in the ground, and I'll tell you why in a minute. What the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shed light upon, with blinding clarity are the limbs of power, the extensions of a type power (akin to the imperialist power of c19) that has little regard for public opinion or human life, that operates through and above the polity and international law. I can't tell you what to call that power, some call it "Capitalism", although use of the term makes no sense if we take it to mean free trade, liberal democracy and so on. In fact even the terms "free trade" and "liberal democracy" simply lose their meaning in such an all powerfull system as ours. The fact is, that throughout "civilised" history, statehood has went hand in hand with violence, that ordinary people have had to be brutally repressed, be it in the city states of ancient Greece, of Rome, Carthage etc or the modern so called "Democratic" state. I n fact ever since the birth of the Nation State, things have got steadily worse as the fabric of power weaved it's way through various societies. What I mean is, that the more that you and I have, the more privelaged we get, means that more and more defences have to be put up in order to hold on to that privelage. This is because ever since civilisation and statehood began, leaders and power elites have sought to justify their lofty position by plundering other states. It's happenning right now with farm subsidies and trade agreements and so called "debt relief." I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy, nor am I talking about class, just a system of hegemonic power, constantly battling, like our genetic code (see Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene) battles to control life, power (and power elites) battle to control the system. But theres a problem, because there are powerful entities that want to put in their own analagous system, that would benefit those in their own states (especially the power elites). There's the EU There's China There's Russia There's India and right now there is a new and very threatening bloc in South America. what the war is about is not regime change, not oil per se, but about keeping the oil and the strategic ground out of the hands of those states with different power elites than the ones that are curently in charge, especially China. Of course all of this is backed by a subserviant media. (see Chomsky)

Answer 3

This never really was a coalition anyway. True, the Brits and the Aussies have made contributions, but for the most part Bush created a mess that is very unpopular in the world (We don't even have to get in to the fact that most of the US also hates the war). Bush is gone in another 15 months, and no matter what party his replacement comes from, the pressure will be to withdrawal.

The decision kind of sucks. Stay and Iraqis and our soldiers both die. Leave and Iraqi's die. I am somewhat ashamed of what my country did in this instance.

Answer 4

THE SURGE WAS A SUCCESS! How much cocaine did your source inhale? By the summer of 2008, the Iraqi army will practically be ready to defend itself with much less direct support than it has now, though I can assure you that no matter who becomes the next president and how many heads roll, there will always be at least one substantial US/British military base in Iraq, just like in South Korea.

Answer 5

Everybody now realises what a horrible mess they have made of Iraq and the politicians will get the troops out as soon as they can without seeming to run for it.

Answer 6

Blackwater comes to mind. Since the American people specifically the American young people have giving bush a blank check for the war. I bet blackwater stock keeps going up.

Answer 7

did you read at all what Brown said- his troops will be leaving beacuse the surge is a success - the momentum helped his area indirectly - so it is getting to the point where foreign troops will no longer be required there.

Answer 8

The USA will persevere.

Answer 9

so Britain listens to her citizens...we should try it.