News & Politics - Former head of UK Army attacks US over Iraq

Lexis · 09-01-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

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

The former chief of the general staff said the approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, was "intellectually bankrupt", describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

Sir Mike's comments - made in his forthcoming autobiography Soldier, serialised exclusively in The Daily Telegraph - represent the most outspoken criticism of American military policy in Iraq to come from a senior British officer.

His attack - the first time he has revealed the depth of his anger towards the US administration - highlights 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.

Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".

Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.

In the book, Sir Mike says he believes 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.

His outspoken remarks are likely to increase tensions between the British and US military over policy in Iraq.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson attacks US over Iraq - Telegraph

And yet somehow, Rummy managed to hang on to his job until last year and nobody seemed to do anything about how awful things were going under his leadership.

Ugh.

Ashleigh · 09-01-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

The former chief of the general staff said the approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, was "intellectually bankrupt", describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

How can we build a nation when someone is coming along behind us and destroying it all over again?

jerkstore · 09-03-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashleigh (View Post)

How can we build a nation when someone is coming along behind us and destroying it all over again?

If we had placed enough troops to keep the peace in Iraq in the first place, the current chaos would probably never have happened. Before the war, Admiral Shinseki told the Pentagon that we needed at least 400,000 troups for the occupation, he was fired. Rumsfeld sent 150,000 troups and called the immediate post war looting "Things happen".

The current horrible situation was both predicable and preventable. However, it is probably too late to improve the situation now.

elisheva · 09-04-2007, 06:35 AM

Yeah, there definitely should have been more soldiers sent at first if things were going to go well.

I do agree that peacebuilding/diplomacy/constructive aid stuff is really important - it's hard to find a balance between that and the more military side, though.

Lexis · 09-04-2007, 10:37 AM

I think that's what he was pointing out, that Rumsfeld ended up running the post-war plans for Iraq when really, it should have been the state department in charge with the DOD in a supporting role.

Military might is clearly crucial but its not the army's job to do absolutely everything.

Papri · 09-04-2007, 11:42 AM

What surprises me most about this article is the fact that The Telegraph are running it.

Will be back with something more astute....

**sunnykerr** · 09-05-2007, 09:08 AM

I think the whole world's approach to global terrorism is inadequate because most countries seem to be operating along the old Cold War model. In other words, the reason a military response doesn't work is that it targets countries and regions, when everybody knows that terrorism is increasingly a stateless, cell-centred and organized, affair.

Yes, I would say that the American approach in Iraq is completely flawed, but it's not like it's the only country approaching terrorism militarily. I think the more worrisome thing is that our leaders seem currently unable to approach terrorism prevention in other ways and seem either unable or unwilling to discuss alternatives.

And, totally, the international community should have been listened to and the diplomatic process should have exhausted thoroughly before resorting to a military invasion in Iraq. At the very least, there might have been more countries to call on for military support.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Former head of UK Army attacks US over Iraq