Meaning of "is to pull" and "foray"

[guest11]

Please let me know what's the meaning of 'is to pull.." and foray, in the following passage:

Japan is to pull its troops out of Iraq, ending its first foray into an active war zone since World War II.

thanking you

[Conchita]

'Japan is to pull its troops out of Iraq' means that it has to move its troops away from Iraq.

A foray is a sudden attack.

[Yankee]

Hi

The word foray has additional meanings.
I wouldn't understand foray to mean sudden attack in the context of this particular sentence, but rather as "an attempt", "a venture" or "an endeavor". In other words, it was the first time Japan had had any kind of military activity (endeavors) in an active war zone since WWII. Military "endeavors" can also include "peace-keeping" activities, for example. And that would not be an attack.

For me foray does not mean "attack" in this sentence (even though that is a standard meaning for the word).

Amy

[Conchita]

[Yankee]

Hi Conchita

I don't think it has anything to do with morals at all. And to be honest, I also don't think my morals are bad, which seems to be what you're insinuating. I happen to have been adamantly against a war or military action in Iraq and actually wrote letters to Mr. Bush before the war ever started. Unfortunately, my attempts to prevent a war were unsuccessful. Sorry.

In my opinion, the interpretation of the word "foray" only has to do with the definition and contextual usage --- not with morals and not with grammar. I don't think Japan's activities in Iraq can be classified as a "sudden attack" (which was the definition you quoted), but rather only as activities carried out by its military. And that was my point. As I understand it, the Japanese are in Iraq to do things such as help rebuild infrastructure, provide clean drinking water, etc.

Yes, there are Japanese troops in Iraq, but there again, I would be reluctant to say that Japan has "occupied" Iraq. For me, an occupation would be better defined as one single nation which occupies another. Depending on one's point of view, people might categorize the entire military presence in Iraq as "an international occupying force". But even then, such an "occupying force" does not consist only of Japan. However, it was only Japan that was mentioned in the sentence. I would be willing to call that a "military presence", but not an "occupation" by Japan.

If the sentence had been about the USA in Iraq - particularly back in 2003, then I'd have agreed with the use of "foray" to mean "sudden attack". But, no matter how I try, I can't see Japan in the same light. If my failure to see Japan's activities in Iraq as a "sudden attack" makes my morals questionable in your eyes, then so be it.

Amy

[Alan]

Hi,

I'd like to add my thoughts on the meaning of foray. Admittedly it had its origins in the middle ages when groups of soldiers would launch sudden attacks with a view to pillaging or plundering the enemy camps but I think it has moved on considerably since then and that's the way as I see it, it's used in the quoted sentence:

[Conchita]

[Yankee]

Hello Conchita

It sure would be nice to know who "someone" is and what exactly you think that certain someone has done wrong. That way I would know which "wrong" thing(s) you seem to think I see as right.

It seems to me that both of us feel the war in Iraq is wrong, so I can only assume that you think I see some other kind of "wrong" as right. How else am I supposed to understand what you wrote?

[Conchita]