British army chief attacks US over Iraq

The head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq Sir Mike Jackson has launched a scathing attack on the United States for the way it handled the post-war administration of the country.

Holding the then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld responsible for the current situation in Iraq, the former chief of the general staff said Rumsfeld was 'intellectually bankrupt' and his claim that American forces 'don't do nation-building' was 'nonsensical', London's [Images] The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday.

According to Sir Jackson, the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam Hussain's overthrow was due to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops.

"Crucially, he (Rumsfeld) refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam Hussain's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the

post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department," the daily quoted the British general's remarks made in his forthcoming book Soldier.

A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's 'surge', the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure, according to him.

Criticising US President George W Bush's [Images] decision to hand over control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department, he wrote, "All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste."

Sir Jackson's remarks in his autobiography has revealed the deep-seated tension between the British command and the Pentagon during the build-up to and the aftermath of the Iraq campaign in 2003, according to the British daily.

In the book, he wrote that he believed the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is 'inadequate' because 'it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy'.

According to the general, he and other senior army officers were opposed to the Pentagon's decision to disband the Iraqi army after Saddam's overthrow. "It was very short-sighted... We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the coalition command."

Sir Jackson has also claimed that he and other senior officers had doubts about the weapons of mass destruction dossier presented by the Blair government in late 2002. "We all knew that it was impossible for Iraq to threaten the UK mainland. Saddam's Scud missiles could barely have reached our bases on Cyprus, and certainly no more distant target."

But, he wrote that he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded the action was 'legitimate under international law without a second resolution'.

Watch your step.

We'll see about that.

"When I post negative things about his country it is hate. When he posts negative things about mine, I am supposed to be gracious and understanding? "

No U aren't supposed to be gracious - in fact Ur response is absolutely appropriate if I choose to carefully look into the issues which have been brought forth. I wanted to write this earlier, but US is targeted primarily because itz a world leader in myriad respects ( which doesn't, however grants any power a license to kill with abandon ). The points which U raised in Ur various posts are very pertinent and to a large extent portray the maladies afflicting Indian society. To say that itz almost about to crumble in some parts of the country would be an understatement. The other side of the story is that I hardly made any attempt to denigrate US for what is wrong with itz society internally against what has been projected against India. This will not warrant that things which are occuring in India can be easily condoned though.

In my opinion, US gets attacked mainly because of itz various global military/economic/political romantic shennanigans out of which some definitely leave behind scenes of chaos and instability.Nobody speaks of India in such light since it doesn't wield that kind is international clout. I have a very strong view of the US -
When U study US in isolation, itz a fabulous country, a role model for others to follow in terms of freedom, growth, human rights, development and economic prosperity. In short, on many parameters itz simply the best. But at the same time itz at itz manipulative best when U start observing itz actions from International perspective. But as I said earlier itz ok - itz something which is completely normal. Every big and powerful entiry has to safeguard itz interests first ( for the time being we can ignore the means employed).

And I agree that itz not time to speak out against whatz perceived to be unjust. We already have enough problems at hand and now I clearly see merit in the Chinese approach they don't utter much until they are there.

"Our country is a little over 200 years old, your civilization is over two thousand years old and we are supposed to blow your nose for you and wipe your ass for you"

I have been debating this with others for long. Are the powerful ( ethically ) responsible for the upliftment of those who are underprivileged OR the ones which find themselves placed lower down the order are supposed to kick themselves hard and fig

and fight off years of rust which has encrusted their respective civilizations ?

I personally prefer the latter.

"I'm curious as to why you find it necessary to copy and past negative news items about America on this web-site. "

To begin with, news items about US can be categorized into two - one which are internal to US society/polity/culture and conduct and the other which pertains to US actions in other countries, well outside their cozy geography, which affect people at large ( physically or mentally, positive or negative ). I believed it had to be highlighted - criticism coming from one of the staunchest allies. Of course any rebuke comimg from the lowly third world or say the enervated europeans would have met with usual derision and would have been promplty dispatched as garbage. At best, the voices would have been dinned by the collective slogans of jingoism.

If US leadership decides to don the mantle of a world leader then I guess itz behavior is not beyond the purview of public discussion at least , if not worthy of a virulent reproach.


"Solitas, Primegen and others have proven themselves equally, if not better informed on issues than you."

Indeed, they are. And I would be surprised if U see the post as a disapproval of US public in all itz generality rather than as a pointer toward the failings of a few "key" decision-makers.

"your time would be better spent tending to issues at home rather than sticking your nose into other peoples business. "

That has been a take-away for me already. BTW, Ur leadership is accused of the latter more frequently than anything else. But Ur advise remains serious, profound and effective nonetheless.