Britain will cease military operations in Iraq by May 31

During a surprise visit to Iraq today, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that Britain will cease all military operations by May 31, 2009, and that all British troops and equipment will be out of the country in approximately two months after that. That will leave the United States as the only remaining foreign military presence in the country

The British withdrawal of its 4,100 troops had been anticipated. The war, which has killed at least 178 British troops, has been unpopular in Britain and became a liability to the governing Labor Party under Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair. When Brown became prime minister in 2007, he made clear that he planned to reduce greatly the British presence in Iraq.

, , ,

  1. #1 by Ken on December 17, 2008 - 12:04 pm


    Shouldn’t your headline be “Britain will continue to commit war crimes till May 31st”?

    Also, “Obama to continue illegal occupation and participate in war crimes starting Jan 20th”?

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2008 - 12:24 pm

    Given that the entire 2003 invasion of Iraq only took five weeks, I’m always skeptical about these foot-dragging time schedules for withdrawal. It’s not like we have to fight our way back out– Iraqis are anxious to see the last of us.

  3. #3 by Ken on December 17, 2008 - 12:42 pm

    The dirty little secret is that there really is no such thing as international law or war crimes. War crimes are only committed by the losers of a war and international law only applies to weaker countries. The United States, being the worlds greatest super-power, can pick and choose what international laws we obey and are willing to enforce. The debating society known as the UN are powerless to enforce any of their “laws” or resolutions without the United States giving them our mother may I. Until the blue helmets can enter the United States and enforce them on their own then they are %100 dependent on us. If that ever happens then it is time to activate the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and every able bodied citizen of the United States take up arms against them.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2008 - 12:54 pm

    Ken– Your “no such thing as international law” theory has a couple of flaws. If the rest of the world hates America, that is not a plus for our national security. If we lay claim to American exceptionalism, why should any other country abide by civilized rules? Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

  5. #5 by Ken on December 17, 2008 - 1:09 pm


    There is no country that is required to abide by civilized rules. They can either choose to abide by them or be forced too. If the United States believes it is in our best interest to abide by civilized rules then we will but since no other country is capable of enforcing the rules on us then it is %100 our choice.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2008 - 1:17 pm

    Ken– If we reserved the right to be an outlaw nation, what moral basis would the United States have for condemning the actions of any other country? Of course, the USA does not have that option because we are a signatory to the U.N. Charter.

  7. #7 by Ken on December 17, 2008 - 3:35 pm


    This isn’t my theory. This same question was posed by Plato about 2500 years ago.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2008 - 9:59 am

    Ken — If you’ve read Plato, you know he was a proto-fascist.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: