Top Brit General Slams Rumsfeld

[pbfoot]

Press Association
Saturday September 1, 2007 6:23 PM


Politicians and military figures have thrown their weight behind General Sir Mike Jackson after he launched a scathing attack on the US for mishandling the aftermath of the Iraq war.

Sir Mike, head of the army during the 2003 invasion, lambasted Washington's post-war policy as "intellectually bankrupt".

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he also singled out ex-US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for criticism, describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

Sir Mike's autobiography brands the US's approach to fighting global terrorism as "inadequate" - insisting it relies too much on military power over diplomacy and nation-building.

He lays the blame for the chaos engulfing Iraq firmly at the door of Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".

The Ministry of Defence insisted that Sir Mike, who is retired, was now a "private individual" and entitled to air his views.

Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said: "What General Jackson has said is absolutely correct. It goes to the very heart of the lack of real planning for post-war Iraq."

Former Tory defence secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind also backed Sir Mike's intervention. He told the BBC: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."

Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf War, said Sir Mike's analysis was "absolutely spot on".

"The frustration, of course, is that one wonders why he and others could not persuade the Government to listen to him so that we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now."

[renrich]

Everybody has an A-hole and everybody has an opinion especially after the fact.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To be honest though, can you blame him.

We soldiers were saying the same thing about Rumsfeld and all the other higher ups when this first started that his "plan" was not going to work.

[ToughOmbre]

Unfortunately, it would be hard NOT to agree with the general, regardless of where one stands on the war.

TO

[trackend]

One commentator (Martin Bell) on the BBC radio 4 today said he thought that the chance of introducing true democracy into Iraq was a lame duck and a pullout before stability can be achieved is just a matter of time then anarchy will reign.

[Gnomey]

Whilst I see that as being the case eventually it could still be brought round if enough troops etc are supplied. I also agree with ToughOmbre in that you cannot disagree with the General (although Rumsfeld would probably try)...

[renrich]

I still think that one should put what is happening in Iraq as far as the internal politics of that country's government is concerned in the context of comparing the experience we had in the US in forming our government. And we did not have a bunch of fanatical muslims going around blowing up people. It took a true civil war and 90 years with more than 600,000 dead to truly unify the country and that only at gunpoint.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You can not compare the two. Totally different circumstances.

[syscom3]

The brit general speaks the truth.

Its one thing for a dubious nation like France making the claim.... but when a trusted ally tells you something is rotten, you had better listen closely.

[pbfoot]

Another Brit General speaks out and for you from off shore this is getting little airplay in the US . The focus in US news is about the Gay senator


Sunday, 02 Sep 2007 09:25
The head of the British army during the invasion said the US approach to post-war planning was "intellectually bankrupt"
A second general has spoken out against the US' attitude towards post-war Iraq, heightening differences between the American and British views on the war.

Major General Mike Cross added to comments yesterday by the head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq, General Sir Mike Jackson, who accused US war architect Donald Rumsfeld as having an "intellectually bankrupt" approach to the war.

In comments to the Sunday Mirror newspaper, Maj Gen Cross said it was clear before the 2003 invasion that American leaders were certain that the Middle Eastern country would make a swift transition to stability.

"The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy," the senior British planner for post-war Iraq was quoted as saying.

"Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea - they simply shut it out."

Maj Gen Jackson said Mr Rumsfeld "ignored" and "dismissed" his expressions of concern, adding that "with hindsight" he believed the US post-Saddam plan for Iraq was "fatally flawed".

His comments echo those of Gen Jackson, who yesterday told the Telegraph newspaper that the American expectation of a warm welcome for the coalition forces was "an ideological article of faith" among planners.

He claimed that it had been assumed that the displacement of the dictator meant that "a model democratic society would inevitably emerge".

Gen Jackson also criticised US foreign policy's reliance on military force, revealed his doubts about the claims on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and said the work of the US state department had been wasted because of a lack of interest from Mr Bush

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

"Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea - they simply shut it out."

Yeap and all the US Generals that disagreed with him "retired".

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Now Rummies retired.

[FLYBOYJ]

The minute Hussein was pulled out of that hole, the mission was done. Democracy in a Muslim country? Like a screen door on a submarine.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The minute Hussein was pulled out of that hole, the mission was done. Democracy in a Muslim country? Like a screen door on a submarine.

Many poly sci's and sociologists would agree with that assessment. I'm afraid that I tend to think that may be true. Not that there are elements that don't want democracy - because there are MILLIONS that covet the possibility of electing representatives. However, there are very strong radical elements in seemingly every islamic country that STRONGLY OPPOSE democracy.

[FLYBOYJ]

Ya know - all the finger pointing about Iraq, who did wrong and who's fault it is for the current situation, one group has to be held responsible as well - the people of Iraq.

If they really wanted to taste democracy or even live in a world where a tyrant dictator wasn't bullying the general population, they, the Iraqi people had the chance to embrace this monumental opportunity. Instead some took up arms to unseat the ruling Sunni majority while others took up arms to retain power. In the middle you have those who will not accept either and just play into the "anarchy of the day."

Case in point - Korea. The South Koreans embraced the opportunity for democracy and capitalism and look at them today while South Vietnam, corrupt and misguided was swallowed up within 2 years after the last of the US forces left. During GW1 the Kuwaiti people fought relentlessly until they had their country back. Look how the people of Eastern Europe embraced their democracies the minute the Soviet Union crumbled apart!

I'm sorry but the people of Iraq have to want their destiny and because of religous and cultural distractions I'm afraid the only way to control the situation there is with another iron-fisted ruler.

The one shimmer of light I see out of this whole episode it that any oil rich country in the region who feels they could sponsor terrorist groups will realize that they will have a price to pay if the elements of their hatred is extended from their borders...

This cartoon says it all!