"Enough of that! Next...wait for it...sketch!"
| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Britain | ||
| Brit General Blasts American Policy | ||
| 2007-09-01 | ||
| LONDON (AFP) - The head of the British Army during the 2003 invasion of Iraq has launched a fierce attack on the United States over its running of the troubled country since, a newspaper reported Saturday. General Sir Mike Jackson branded US post-invasion policy "intellectually bankrupt" and said its then defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was "one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq." Old news.
More old news. Does this guy know Petreaus is in charge?
Like Miliband and Browne, Jackson defended the record of Britain's military in Basra, Iraq's second city, in comments published in the Daily Telegraph, which is about to serialise his forthcoming autobiography, "Soldier." He rejected any suggestion that British forces in the south had failed. "I don't think that's a fair assessment at all," Jackson 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." Jackson attacked the decision to hand control of planning the post-invasion administration of Iraq to the Pentagon. All the planning carried out by the State Department had "gone to waste," he argued. Ohhhh...toooo bad! He added that disbanding the Iraqi army and security forces after toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "very short-sighted. "We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the coalition," he said. And that's the end of the 'story'. I only editied out some background. | ||
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #11 Compare with Ozzies, that were in a similar situation and would have none of it. Uppity colonists showing 'em how things're done. Bit of bloody cheek, eh wot? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-01 18:12 |
| #10 One of the symptoms of the British policies is the ROE that led to the capture of their soldiers by Iranians. Compare with Ozzies, that were in a similar situation and would have none of it. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-01 17:46 |
| #9 "Enough of that! Next...wait for it...sketch!" |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-01 14:23 |
| #8 That's like Ted Kennedy lecturing us on safe driving. Thank you, but no thanks. The criticism seems to be hitting home because the truth hurts. The Brit Pols and Generals have made bad policy, bad decisions, and wasted their troops' efforts and lives lost. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-01 12:35 |
| #7 Personally I don't think Carthage ever fought back after the last punic war. Seems a decent strategy to follow regarding your enemies. Let those on the fence see and decide for themselves. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-09-01 12:31 |
| #6 I've been following events in Basra for several years, and many British soldiers' blogs have been warning that the UK Generals been whistling past the graveyard since 2004. They've been claiming success for their "soft approach" when in fact they've been giving JAM a blank check. The Americans have been using a "soft approach" during the surge too, but that's after the Sunnis and JAM have seen the results of America's "hard approach". I detect more than a little jealousy towards "the colonials". Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-09-01 11:18 |
| #5 Oh, P2K - savage assessment. And it sounds so true. On the other hand, Yon had high regard for their soldiers, if not their Generals. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-09-01 09:34 |
| #4 "I don't think that's a fair assessment at all," Jackson said. Heh. I’ve read and I know of incidents that accumulate that tell me there’s a significant different story going on. One case after another of American troops taking damage or giving that full measure of devotion in a fight along side or with their Iraqi counterparts. That there was no hesitation of taking care of his brother warrior regardless of nationality or, for that matter, rank. The Americans lack a class distinction that still haunts the Euros. You don’t think that has an effect on the success of the job? You don’t think that the Iraqi doesn’t perceive the difference? Who do you think the Iraqi would simply play the game with in order to move the short term intruder along and the one the Iraqi would call brother? In a culture with strong tribal behaviors, which elicits more cooperation in the long run? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-01 09:00 |
| #3 I actually agree with his statement that US mistakes are in large part responsible for the situation, but "US approach places too much emphasis on military" is the exact opposite of the reason. It was TOO LITTLE military emphasis at key times in Iraq, and too little military at all ('cuz we don't have enough) in other places. His claim that a lack of diplomacy is responsible also has an element of truth - but again the opposite direction. If the rest of the West had been diplomatic enough to have presented a united front against the Islamofascists a lot of the fighting might have been unnecessary (including even the actual invasion of Iraq.) It's a diplomatic failure for Bush to disagree with him but not a diplomatic failure for him to disagree with Bush. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-01 08:57 |
| #2 Hope it helps his book sales. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-01 08:25 |
| #1 The British policy of defeat both in the south and in the Gulf speaks for itself. This man should not have retired, he should have been cashiered. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-09-01 07:40 |