Page 1 of 1

US Iraq strategy was "intellectually bankrupt" .

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 am
by Captain Seafort
So says General Sir Mike Jackson
UK general attacks US Iraq policy

Sir Mike said that US anti-terror strategy was "inadequate"
The head of the British army during the Iraq invasion has said US post-war policy was "intellectually bankrupt".

In a Daily Telegraph interview, former chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, added that US strategy had been "short-sighted".

He said former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".

The US Department of Defence said: "Divergent viewpoints are a hallmark of open, democratic societies."

Sir Mike told the Daily Telegraph that Mr Rumsfeld's claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" was "nonsensical".

'Frustration' with UK in Basra

He criticised the decision to hand control of planning the administration of Iraq after the war to the Pentagon.

'Inadequate' approach

He also described the disbanding of the Iraqi army and security forces after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as "very short-sighted".

He said: "We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the coalition."

Sir Mike, who is now retired, also defended the record of British troops in Iraq after claims by US officials that UK forces had failed.

He said: "What has happened in the south, as throughout the rest of Iraq, was that primary responsibility for security would be handed to the Iraqis once the Iraqi authorities and the coalition were satisfied that their state of training and development was appropriate.

"In the south we had responsibility for four provinces. Three of these have been handed over in accordance with that strategy. It remains just in Basra for that to happen."

The Telegraph said Sir Mike writes in his autobiography, which is being serialised in the paper, that the US approach to fighting global terrorism was "inadequate" as it focused on military power rather than diplomacy and nation-building.

Further strain

His comments follow a series of critical remarks from US officials about the British attitude towards Iraq.

Retired Gen Jack Keane said last week that American commanders had expressed "frustration" over the prospect of UK withdrawal.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said Sir Mike's comments may put further strain on the British-US operation in Iraq.

Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said Sir Mike's remarks reinforced his view that British troops should leave Iraq as soon as is practically possible.

He added: "What Gen Jackson has said is absolutely correct.

"It goes to the very heart of the lack of real planning for post-war Iraq."

Last week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to Mr Campbell, rejecting the Lib Dem leader's call for a timetable for withdrawing UK troops.

A spokeswoman for the US State Department said she would not comment on Sir Mike's views.

A US Department of Defence spokesman said: "Divergent viewpoints are a hallmark of open, democratic societies and that tradition is part of the military culture and ethos."
Nothing really new, but it's another straw on the camel's back.

Divergent viewpoints, eh? He was right when had "divergent viewpoints" with Wesley Clark, and he's right now. Not that Bush and his cronies will ever admit that.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:24 am
by Sionnach Glic
In other news the sky is blue.
Nothing there we didn't really know ourselves.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:27 am
by Teaos
We all knew this already. The truely sad thing is that this happened. The most powerful country in the world put itself in this situation and it has no one to blame but itself.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:47 pm
by Aaron
What's worse is that the UK went along with the BS.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:04 pm
by Sionnach Glic
They weren't the only country. The Taoiseach's decision to let the US use Shannon airport to move troops and planes was rather unpopular, yet it still went through.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:15 pm
by Aaron
No the UK wasn't the only country to go along with this tripe, merely the most visible. I can't fathom what prompted the Poles for instance to go along with it.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:22 pm
by Teaos
Suck up to the super power why else. No one brought the freedom from Sadam thing.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:43 pm
by Aaron
It might have bought them entry into NATO, I can't remember if they were members before Iraq or not.

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:45 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Poland joined NATO on March 12th 1999. So it wasn't for that reason.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:34 am
by Teaos
And I doubt they would be refused entry if they had wanted it. America doesnt own NATO.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:35 am
by Monroe
Poland likes (or liked) America because America was on the other side of the cold war from Poland's oppressors. So America was and I think still is very popular in Poland and sending a few hundred special forces was a good idea at a time in what they saw as aiding their friend. Sadly the trust was misplaced.