I have no idea what Bobert was trying to say in that bit you quoted from him, so if you intend for me to understand what your meaning is, I think you'd better find a way to communicated it in your own words.

As for the reality on the ground, all you have to do is look at the difference between the success that the UK forces have had using entirely different methods and that of the US forces. Our government is only interested in maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq and establishing permanent bases. So we don't see it as success if the various factions in Iraq are getting along with one another.

But even if I can't prove this, we certainly have a conflict of interest in having our forces in Iraq (we want their oil, and we want to use Iraq as a staging ground for other military adventures), and withdrawing our forces, ending the occupation, and allowing an international peace keeping force to take over in Iraq removes any appearance of that conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, I think the people of Iraq are in a better position to say whether or not their family members have been killed than the government that has a vested interest in maintaining a permanent occupation of another, supposedly sovereign country.