British General Blasts Bush On Iraq Failures
By Logan Murphy Friday Aug 31, 2007 8:48pm
From Meteor Blades at Daily Kos:
What? Yet another general has added his voice to the crew who have taken the Cheney-Bush regime to task for botching postwar operations in Iraq? Yep. This time, it's not American generals like Wes Clark, Greg Newbold, Paul Eaton, John Riggs, Paul Van Riper, Charles Swannack or John Batiste doing the pounding. It's "Macho Jacko," General Sir Michael Jackson, who ran the British Army in March 2003 when Iraq was invaded. He retired last year and began writing an autobiography, Soldier, which is being serialized in Britain's Daily Telegraph. (Hat tip to Magnifico.)
According to the Telegraph's story:
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. Read more...
Login or Register to post comments.
Frrrrissssty!
"What? Yet another general has added his voice to the crew who have taken the Cheney-Bush regime to task for botching postwar operations in Iraq? Yep. This time, it’s not American generals like Wes Clark, Greg Newbold, Paul Eaton, John Riggs, Paul Van Riper, Charles Swannack or John Batiste doing the pounding."
Any wingnut can tell you why this is. The answer is obvious. These generals are aiding the Al-Queda types and secretly want the terrorist to win.
I remember reading that that there was a sign at the British HQ right after we invaded that said:
"Yee-haw is not a foreign policy."
"Check this medal out, I can kill you with my bare hands in 10 seconds, chap! "
Just for the record, "Sir Mike's" memoir is being circulated in the Daily Telegraph, which, as a friend in Britain puts it, is the newspaper of and for all the old retired colonels. This is about as far as it gets from a lefty rag. And yet, I'm sure all our closeted neo-con queens will get their panties twisted all over this. (forgive the last comment...Larry Craig has me convinced that all these rabid righties are closeted homosexuals)
You know, I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, but the neo-cons need to hang.....their crimes are public record and indisuptable It's true, it's just, and the world needs it.
V V
Got to hand it to Tony Blair though. He took responsibility and stepped down over the Iraq war and he didn't even start the damn thing. Chimperor started the war and he doesn't have the "dignity and integrity" to step down over the war or over any of the plethora of his other failed policies. Rather Chimperor is going to drag this nation down till the very end in January 2009.
I just hope we as a nation can make it till then.
baby jesus has a uniform like that but a little more ornate
“We gave Iraq a choice and they chose civil war.”
It’s time to leave.
General Sir Mike Jackson lays it on the table....
Unfortunately he's only pimping a book.
Shame he wasn't covered by the BBC saying these things when they mattered.
Shame we.... Britain.... are still your little lapdog.
Wake up Gordon....dump the USA....we don't need you for anything.
PS your filth has permeated our country.... McDonalds....Starbucks.... etc etc.
Oh... and by the way....get a paper ballot next time.
d-man @ 5:
I think the proper term is "will get their knickers in a twist". ;)
Ruthless People @ 7:
Amen.
Is it just me, or does the British general look like Emperor Shaddam IV from the movie Dune?
Tommykey @ 13:
"Bring in that floating fat man, the Baron! "
Why does a British general hate America?
"This is genocide! I want the complete eradication of all life in Iraq... I mean on Arrakis!"
I know his name is Michael Jackson, but goddam he looks like a BAD motherfucker.
No doubt the Brits are regretting not having defeated US forces in the Revolutionary War.
Had America not won its independence then GWB would've never become the worst president ever and Tony Blair would be the most popular PM since ,well, anybody.
The general says the Iraq plan is "intellectually bankrupt"...just at the Bush administration has been from the start.
While it is nice to see Jackson criticize Bush's handling of Iraq, liberals should, I believe, be more ready to point out the morality and ethics and the illegality of this unnecessary occupation than that Iraq is being taken to task for the lack of strategy that was used by Bush. Strategy becomes extremely moot when the justification for invading a third world country has been found to be a fraud.
I am going to disagree with the post below the fold. What if it had worked?
I know I’m playing a “what-if” scenario that is far from the outcome that we’ve seen, but just hypothetically…
What if Rumsfeld was right? What if we marched into Baghdad after three days of fighting, and did everything perfectly? What if we secured the weapons, kept the police and military in place, built up the infrastructure, and gave the Iraqi people new schools and hospitals and electricity and air-conditioning and oil-profits? Would it have been worth it? Think about it…
It sure would be hard to argue against this war had this particular “what-if” scenario played out like that.
But…
The war was wrong. As bad as Sadaam was, he was our creation. Even if we did everything right after the invasion, it can’t justify our actions. We were not attacked by Iraq, they had a sovereign government; and success with this military action would have created a domino effect that would eventually lead to failure during the next one (or the one after that). I would hate to see perpetual invasions succeed just because we did it right.
Contrary to Sir Mike, in a way I’m thankful Rumsfeld was so inept. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and we are now stopped there – in a quagmire because of this ineptitude. So be it – this is our lesson: not that that we did it wrong, but that we did it in the first place.
Bush Administration::
Inept
Clumsy
Bungling
Incompetent
Absurd
Corrupt
Immoral
vitiated
For those that point out that it is easy to see the mistakes after the fact, we should all be reminded that these very arguments were made before the fact. It's not as though no one could have guessed that these problems would occur. Many very intelligent people pointed out these very issues that we are dealing with today, prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Bush Admin ignored and even derided those who made these problems known.
There is no "honest mistake" in Iraq. Because this administration criminally manipulated intelligence to launch a war on a sovereign nation who DID NOT ATTACK US, they must bear all of the blame for all of the problems which ensued as a result of the invasion. They must be made to pay a price for their irresponsible actions.
It's not enough that we just "wait them out" and let them walk away after the next election. Our weak congress must be made to bring charges now.
I hope the senate hurries back from summer vacation. They need to get to work. It's time to re-name English Muffins to Freedom Muffins.
From BBC:
"A second key British general has criticised US post-war policy in Iraq.
Maj Gen Tim Cross, who was the most senior UK officer involved in post-war planning, told the Sunday Mirror US policy was "fatally flawed".
His comments came after Gen Sir Mike Jackson, head of the Army during the invasion, told the Daily Telegraph US policy was "intellectually bankrupt"."
Nice.
A collaborator in war crimes like him has no right to be telling Bush off for choices he supported.
The real cost of going into Iraq is this, taken from the latest issue of NYT
Over the past six weeks, the Taliban have driven government forces out of roughly half of a strategic area that American and NATO officials declared a success story last fall.
►Runs-With-Dog◄ @ 27:
We shouldn't be there either. We went in to get binLaden and it blossomed into bringin democracy to Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban, who by the way were our government's friends and received American foreign aid that we didn't seem to care about. Now we are killing them, our allies, and not really accomplishing much of anything. Oh wait, I hear the poppy crop was excellent this year. Guess the CIA needs to have a stash for their operations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6974611.stm
A second key British general has criticised US post-war policy in Iraq.
Maj Gen Tim Cross, who was the most senior UK officer involved in post-war planning, told the Sunday Mirror US policy was "fatally flawed". Follow link to read more.
Speaking of the British:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
Geez.
Guess who came out of the sewer to criticize the General -
John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, dismissed Sir Mike's criticism as "way off the mark".
Mr Bolton told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that Sir Mike had "read into a version of history that simply is not supported by the evidence". "And I can see where he'd have a parochial view from the military perspective. I don't think he saw some of the larger political debates.
Weird, they anyone would actually ask Bolton for his opinion considering that he was known as a buffoon at the UN and he couldn't even get his appointment approved by the Senate even though the Senate was controlled by republicans at the time.
getalife @ 30:
Good grief. A three day blitz? Gonna do a little "shock and awing"? We know that plan works swimmingly. It would be funny if not so absurd.
You know what's going to happen when Sir Mike's book is released here, don't you? You're gonna have 1) Ann Coulter calling him a "f***ot" on teevee 2)"Comedian" Rush Limbaugh will be going on about the sissy Brits and how the good ole USA bailed them out in WWII 3)Sean Hannity and Billo will start haranguing the farting, nose pickers which comprise their "audience" about what traitors the Brits are. Mark my words; this is a sure thing.
They are putting Frank Gafney back on the talking head debate circuit. What a piece of shit that guy is.
Chris @ 31:
And let's not forget how Jon Stewart made him look like a complete jerkoff on the Daily Show. Who the fuck still thinks Bolton has any credibility. The guy's a friggin' joke - everybody at the UN knew it.
Chris @ 31:
It makes sense in a weird sorta way. If you want fair and balanced reporting you need to hear from both sides. Since the general was clearly a rational human being, a buffoon was the perfect counter balance.
Russ Mason UK @ 10:
Just for the record, Starbucks is pretty OK for a corporation. They pay relatively reasonable wages, offer benefits from day one to all employees, and I believe support fair trade for coffee farmers. Also, they are kind of an interesting economic anomaly as they actually propagate independent coffee shops here in the US......Starbucks enters a "virgin" market, introducing "fancy coffee".....having created that market indy competitors enter into it.
Be assured I hate "Americanization" too (I ate at McDonalds in Prague in a time crunch.....but hated myself for it), but fair is fair.
V V
Russ Mason UK @ 10:
You're rage towards the USA is delicious. Now touch my monkey, touch him!!! love him!!
Russ Mason UK @ 10:
OK, we're sorry about McDonald's and Geo. Bush.
Now takes those goddamn Beckhams back!
Kudos to Sir Mike
Blue Buddha @ 11:
Good point and thanks! :)
Vitam Vas @ 36:
That is right, because if there was something lacking in Europe was "fancy coffee"
Thank goodness we have an American big corporation to show us how coffee should be taken: in a hurry, diluted, in a paper cup, and with two pounds of sugar and three quarts of whipped cream :-)
"His attack - the first time he has revealed the depth of his anger towards the US administration - highlights the deep-seated tension between "
Why is criticism, and in this case valid criticism, considered an attack?
Russ Mason UK @ 10:
I was thinking the same thing. That's why I won't give much credit to Jacko here. If he knew the whole american approach to Iraq sucked then why didn't he do something actively and constructively to voice his professional assessment (read: dissent)? See? All that tells me is that much like Colin Powell he knew better but chose to be a 'yes' man in the UK to Tony Blair just to preserve his position and his pension. I Wonder how many american and Iraq lives that cost?
Doctor Who @ 41:
Exactly. When I was in Spain seven years ago, the only coffee you could get was straight up espresso... no creme (though they usually asked if you wanted "leche") and no sugar. When I was on the plane back to NY, the stewardess gave me some of that good ol' watered down American coffee.
You still have some smartening up to do Generial. If you think the US went into Iraq with Tony Poodle in tow to fight a war on terrorism, you still haven't grasped the bigger picture.
This War on Terrorism is Bogus
I see the Mehdi army or rather Al-Sadr has declared a ceasefire. I bet he has - want the British to get out as soon as possible so he can take over with his own dictatorship!
The benchmarks should be whether there is a democracy 3-5 years down the line.
Is it possible to Swift-boat a foreign officer?
That said it's still farther left the the NYTimes and other bastions of liberal media.
Here's an article about another Michael Jackson who recently passed away.
This could be the first high level criticism aimed at us from the Brits since 1812. I wonder if they'll declare independence?
The guy Jackson succeeded was also concerned about the war before it took place:
The head of the Royal Navy at the time of the Iraq invasion was so worried about the legality of the conflict that he sought his own private legal advice on justification for the war.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2643053.ece
Login or Register to post comments.