A bit unfair that. There have been about the same no. of fatalities, per capita (i.e. proportion), as the in the US section.

BTW Tracy, they are British soldiers, not English; even not allowing for Scottish regiments there may well be English, Welsh, Scottish and NI troops in any British group.

We're not yet devolved, but if the Scottish Nationalist (cf Quebecois) get their way then one day you guys may be right. Even then it's unlikely the British Army will become the English Army.

>Actually, word of mouth in the troops is that England got the locations in the south where the Iraqi troops are better trained, organized, and capable of taking over. Less strife among clicks. It was somewhat of a 'contention' with U.S. soldiers in the really hot areas. That is not to say that it was safe - far from it. It was just as dangerous as other locations. But realistically, it is somewhat like the difference between the B section and C section of Fulton prison in California. Your odds are better in C than B (or is it the reverse?). Yet both are so dangerous that you really are not expected to survive. The Iraqi troops in that area have notified the authorities that they are ready to assume control.
>
>
>
>
>According to the BBC Tony Blair is expected to announce on Wednesday that the last British troops in Iraq will be phased out. 1500 of the remaining 7000 UK troops in Iraq will be called home soon and the rest on a schedule to be defined.
>>
>>It never really was an international coalition like the first Gulf War. IMO this seals it that the U.S. is going this alone. We're the last to figure out what a bad idea this was.
>>
>>Tony Blair can't be announcing this for political reasons because his career has already been wrecked by his steadfastness with the U.S. in Iraq. He is an even lamer duck than President Bush. In the end he is doing what he thinks is right. Good for him.