General backed over US attack

[97silverlsc]

General backed over US attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6890347,00.html
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."

 

[MAC1]

This is actually good news since it shows the Libs are desperate to find something to keep the War and Bush administration attack machine going so they resort to the same old outdated Rumsfeld and Bush administration talking points. Very boring! :sleep:

 

[fossten]

Phil's shooting blanks. :lol:

 

[Calabrio]

...so a far left British newspaper is reporting that a British General is saying criticizing the decisions made in Iraq four years after the fact?

Very bold.

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.

Isn't that the entire point behind Iraq? For better or worse, military power, diplomacy, and nation building....

 

[Iszi]

...so a far left British newspaper is reporting that a British General is saying criticizing the decisions made in Iraq four years after the fact?

Very bold.

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.

Isn't that the entire point behind Iraq? For better or worse, military power, diplomacy, and nation building....

No opinion here, but to clarify, I think you mis-interpreted this: "relies too much on military power over diplomacy and nation building" probably means Sir Mike thinks the strategy is over-reliant on military power, instead of diplomacy and nation building - as opposed to actually focusing on all three.

Punctuation would probably help that quote convey its meaning better. Put a comma - where it likely should be - after "military power" and the meaning is more clear. Just like the panda that "eats, shoots, and leaves".

 

[Calabrio]

No opinion here, but to clarify, I think you mis-interpreted this: "relies too much on military power over diplomacy and nation building" probably means Sir Mike thinks the strategy is over-reliant on military power, instead of diplomacy and nation building - as opposed to actually focusing on all three.

Punctuation would probably help that quote convey its meaning better. Put a comma - where it likely should be - after "military power" and the meaning is more clear. Just like the panda that "eats, shoots, and leaves".

I understood his statement. But his statement is hollow. Iraq is a demonstration of those three elements, two of which he says are lacking, particularly the nation building part.

You rarely can you engage in any kind of nation building without military power. And you can't engage in diplomacy when you're dealing with a faceless enemy that is unwilling, and when past attempts with past recognized ideological leaders historically has demonstrated that they will not negotiate in good faith.

This is yet another opportunistic leftist selling a book in a left leaning country.

 

[fossten]

I see it differently than both of you. I think it was meant this way:

"relies too much on [1]military power over diplomacy and [2]nation building"

Libs are always accusing Bush of nation building, like it's such a bad thing.