Former army chief blasts US policy
Ned Temko
Sunday September 2, 2007
The Observer
The Ministry of Defence yesterday moved to limit the diplomatic fallout from an attack on American policy in Iraq by the former head of the British army.
Responding to General Sir Mike Jackson's criticism of America's postwar strategy as 'intellectually bankrupt', an MoD spokesman said that the general had been voicing a personal opinion based on his former role.
American Defence and State Department spokesmen also played down the remarks yesterday.
The damage-limitation exercise reflected concerns that Jackson's comments could carry considerably more diplomatic and political weight than recent similar criticisms.
The general was head of the British army during the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and in his remarks, tied to the serialisation of his autobiography in the Daily Telegraph, took personal aim at the former US Secertary for Defence Donald Rumsfeld.
They also came in the wake of suggestions that the US is unhappy with Britain's withdrawal from Basra. The Americans are understood to be concerned that US troops might have to be shifted to the southern Iraqi city.
The Americans' alarm could be reinforced by suggestions in today's Sunday Times that British troops could leave as early as next month.
But in an extraordinary, jointly signed opinion article in Friday's Washington Post, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Des Browne defended Britain's military strategy against what they called 'misplaced criticism' and suggested a pull-out was unlikely before the end of the year.
'Commanders on the ground expect that Basra province will in months, not years, be judged to have met the conditions for transfer to full Iraqi security control,' they said.
They argued that the key to future stability there would depend on 'courageous Iraqi leadership'. But in an apparent bid to reassure the Americans, they added that the 'final decision' in Basra would be taken 'in consultation with the US commander of the multinational force'.
Still, there were signs Jackson's remarks were gathering broader political and military support in Britain. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Tory Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, endorsed his criticism of Rumsfeld, calling him 'incompetent'. Rifkind argued that the Labour government had damaged both allied and Iraqi interests by papering over such divisions at the time.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, said Jackson's remarks strengthened his party's calls for a complete British troop withdrawal as soon as possible.
Potentially more embarrassing were remarks, in an interview for today's Sunday Mirror, by Major General Tim Cross, the top British officer involved in post-war planning. Describing US postwar policy as 'fatally flawed,' he said he had raised his concerns with Rumsfeld at the time but that his warnings had been 'dismissed' or 'ignored'.
He added: 'From the very beginning, we were concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process.
'I had lunch with Rumsfeld in February in Washington - before the invasion in March 2003 - and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work with the United Nations.
'I also raised concerns over the numbers of troops available to maintain security and aid reconstruction. He didn't want to hear that message.'The US had convinced themselves that following the invasion Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy. They shut out anybody who challenged that idea.'
He said he had briefed Jackson on his return from the talks in Washington and that 'he absolutely shared my concerns'. 'Other people within the American military and State Department also shared our concerns,' Cross added.
http://us.f364.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=7921_1535009_182299_2864_3399_0_324237_9768_4082955619&Idx=0&YY=85928&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
