Reply
Sun 2 Sep, 2007 09:54 am
Briton Blames Rumsfeld for Situation in Iraq
By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 2, 2007; A17
LONDON, Sept. 1 -- The general who headed the British army during the 2003 Iraq invasion said that former U.S. defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's handling of postwar Iraq was "intellectually bankrupt" and pointed to Rumsfeld as "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq."
Mike Jackson, the British former chief of general staff who retired last year, strongly criticized Rumsfeld and the U.S. postwar effort in Iraq in his new book, "Soldier." The Daily Telegraph is to begin serializing the book Monday, after publishing some excerpts and an interview Saturday.
Jackson's stinging comments come at a time of growing tension between the British and U.S. military efforts in Iraq. Britain has been Washington's closest ally since the war began in 2003, but the military relationship has frayed, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is under growing pressure to speed the reduction of British troops in Iraq.
Jackson criticized President Bush for putting the Pentagon in charge of the postwar administration of Iraq rather than the State Department.
"All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," Jackson wrote. He said the Pentagon did not deploy even half the troops it would have needed for a country the size of Iraq.
He said Rumsfeld and those around him took it as "an ideological article of faith that the coalition soldiers would be accepted as a liberating army."
Jackson also characterized Rumsfeld's claim that U.S. forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical."
That British general is a bit late on his criticism of Rummy; he's been gone for awhile now. People must learn to speak up when they first see it; not when they're gone. Can't do anything after the fact.
I find it hard to read a book written by a modern British person, since my mind gives all the words a British accent. I find that annoying. I can't help it, but to my American ears, a British accent (in my head) often sounds pompous when it is not doing British comedy.
How do I overcome this? Does anyone else associate the British culture with an occasional tendency to pomposity, or does this just reflect my limited existence? Perhaps, I've watched too many old black and white British mysteries?
I truly feel remorse for these feelings. I hope I'm in the minority.
Unless I'm reading Shakespear...
cicerone imposter wrote:That British general is a bit late on his criticism of Rummy; he's been gone for awhile now. People must learn to speak up when they first see it; not when they're gone. Can't do anything after the fact.
Actually, it's most surpring that such a high ranked officer makes his opinion public.
Foofie wrote:I find it hard to read a book written by a modern British person, since my mind gives all the words a British accent. I find that annoying. I can't help it, but to my American ears, a British accent (in my head) often sounds pompous when it is not doing British comedy.
The British speak and write English. It is widely know that this language differs from yours. (But Americans are "just bad spellers", explained the Australian PM yesterday.)
From BBB's article: "All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," Jackson wrote. He said the Pentagon did not deploy even half the troops it would have needed for a country the size of Iraq.
I'm no military strategist, but knew from the onset that 140,000 troops was not enough to win in Iraq. 160,000 is still too small for a country the size of Iraq. You can't secure the borders or secure any part of Iraq with that level of troops. Why people can't see that amazes me, but continue to buy in Bush's rhetoric about "making progress."
On one hand the administration says we are making progress and the number of US casualties is down then they turn around and accuse Iran of being the cause of the increase in US casualties.
When you start paying attention it looks like they just make up facts to support their present position.
There is little doubt of the truth of the criticisms that Gen. Jackson offered - as they were reported above. The unfolding history of the conflict has amply demonstrated that.
However, it is also true that joint operations with the British military were always a bit hard for us to endure, mostly because of a persistent tendency on the part of British officers to lecture and criticize, often in a rather juvenile and schoolmasterish manner. We often had the impression that they were too steeped in the past, the history of what they once were, as opposed to the reality of the then present situation.
Much could be written about the unwise passivity of the British management of the situation in the Basra region of Iraq, which was their assignment. The relative silence on the part of our military establishment on that point speaks volumes compared to the steady criticisms that have issued from them, of which Gen Jackson's book is only a representative part.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace