Just for clarification: Was it Iraq OR Kuwait which had done for Middle east?

What's the reason for the war and why did you say that it's an easy way out? What's the evidence that you have to support your argument.

Yes... from an ethical point of view/ moral point of view... is it correct?

Yes, a good leader should be able to boost the morale of his soldiers. That's crucial in battle as psychological advantage is important in warfare.

he could take the risk of saying no during the meeting. He was coerced into saying yes because his weakness of being "kind" was obvious to the Japanese. When the Japanese threatened to bomb Kuala Lumpur, he retreated for the fear of harming the civilians. However, if he really spared a thought for the civilians, he should stay on and fight. He refused to attack Sultan Palace although it was occupied by the Japanese. He did so as he was afraid to harm the sultan. Such "kindness" was seen again when he surrendered as the Japanese threatened to harm the civilians in Singapore. His "kindness" caused a detrimental impact on the outcome of the war. Thus, he should be made responsible.

However, he was not given enough support from the British government and he had to his utmost best to utilize the resources he had. Time was a factor and he did not have enough time to train the troops.

However, he should gather enough intelligence before the meeting with Yamashita. Intelligence could provide him with information on the size of the Japanese troops. He was the one who signed the treaty and he made the decision in a hasty manner.

However, an astute leader should be able to know the necessary strategies/tactics to overcome the lack of equipment.

Britain was involved with war in Europe and they needed to reserve the best troops for the defense of heir homeland.