Former army chief blasts US on Iraq
The head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq has labelled post-war US policy “intellectually bankrupt”, it was reported today.
The former chief of the general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, criticised the then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, describing his claim that US forces “don’t do nation-building” as “nonsensical”.
His comments to the Daily Telegraph, ahead of the serialisation of his autobiography in the newspaper, will be seen as adding to perceived tensions between Britain and the US over Iraq.
Sir Mike lays the blame for what many see as the post-war failure in the country firmly at the door of Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was “one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq”.
The newspaper reports that Sir Mike’s book, Soldier, claims Washington’s approach to fighting global terrorism is “inadequate” as it relies too much on military power over diplomacy and nation-building.
Sir Mike, who is now retired, also defended the record of British forces in Basra: “I don’t think that’s a fair assessment at all,” he said of claims made by American officials that UK forces had failed.
“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.”
Sir Mike criticised the decision to hand control of planning the administration of Iraq after the invasion to the Pentagon.
He claimed all the planning that had been carried out by the State Department had “gone to waste”.
Disbanding the Iraqi army and security forces after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was “very short-sighted”.
He added: “We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the Coalition.”
The comments from Sir Mike follow a series of critical remarks made recently by US officials, many anonymously, about Britain’s commitment to Iraq.
Retired General Jack Keane, who has just returned from Iraq, said last week there was “frustration” among commanders who wanted to avoid having to fill any vacuum left by British soldiers if they withdrew.
The security situation in southern Iraq was “deteriorating” and there was “general disengagement” by the British military in Basra, he added.
The current head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, recently said forces were “certainly stretched”.
His comments have been interpreted by some as adding further pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to cut Britain’s commitment in Iraq to allow more soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence is reportedly considering a major reinforcement of the Nato mission in Afghanistan, possibly sending up to 2,000 extra troops.
A US State Department spokeswoman said she would not comment on Sir Mike’s remarks, while a spokesman for the US Department of Defence said: “Divergent viewpoints are a hallmark of open, democratic societies and that tradition is part of the military culture and ethos.”
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.
“There was no plan for what was to happen after a military victory. The sad fact is that British military personnel are paying with their lives on a regular basis for that lack of foresight.
“It underlines yet again our determination to get our troops out as soon as is practically possible. We recognise their bravery and their professionalism, but at the same time we accept what General Jackson is suggesting – that their continued presence serves neither a political nor military purpose.”
