The Coalition is Collapsing

Another ex-General offers armchair criticism, from the safety of retirement.

Senior figures back general over Iraq

By Bridget Morris

‘Intellectually bankrupt’ US approach attacked

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.

Jackson, head of the British Army during the 2003 invasion, lambasted Washington's post-Gulf war policy as "intellectually bankrupt". He also singled out former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

Jackson's comments, which came yesterday ahead of the publication of his autobiography, Soldier, are likely to add to transatlantic tensions over Iraq. There has been concern in the US that the UK is planning to "cut and run" by withdrawing troops from the south of the country sooner rather than later.

However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed any move will be dictated by conditions on the ground rather than political motives.

Jackson'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 Rumsfeld, saying he was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".

And Jackson, who is now retired, defended the record of British forces following private claims by American officials that they had "failed" in Basra.

He said: "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."

Jackson said disbanding the Iraqi army and security forces after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was "very short-sighted", and it had been a mistake to hand control of administrative planning to the Pentagon.

He said: "We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the coalition."

Jackson's intervention follows a series of critical remarks made recently by US military figures 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".

The Ministry of Defence insisted that Jackson was now a "private individual" and was entitled to air his views.

The US State Department refused to comment. 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. 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."

Former Conservative defence secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, also backed Jackson's intervention.

He said: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was 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."