Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Sir Mike Jackson blames US for 'appalling' handling of Iraq war

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 December 2008
GENERAL Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the British Army, last night accused the Americans of "appalling" decision-making during the Iraq war.
Jackson, the former chief of the general staff, said the violence experienced in post-war Iraq was "much exacerbated by the security vacuum created by Washington's appalling decisions" to disband the Iraqi security forces.

Jackson, who was in char
ge of the British Army during the war, added that the US policy to "de-Ba'athify" Iraq doubled the time taken to reach the point where the coalition could consider a withdrawal from the country.

The general also said that Iranian backing for Shi'ite militants, a development which led to hundreds of British casualties, further complicated the post-war environment.

The former defence chief, who said he believed the campaign had been successful, was also critical of the US and British governments for failing to "understand fully" the complexity of the situation in Iraq and to create a proper reconstruction plan.

The general said the euphoria which followed the toppling of Saddam was short-lived because factions inside Iraq began to use violence in pursuit of political objectives.

But he was not entirely critical of the coalition. He argued that it achieved "tremendous successes", including a referendum on a new Iraqi constitution and subsequent elections. It also achieved the creation of a new Iraqi security force and the avoidance of outright civil war.

In total, 136 British troops have died in Iraq and thousands more have been injured. Jackson said their deaths and wounds "were not in vain but rather suffered in the noble cause of a better future for Iraq and the region as a whole".

Meanwhile, Iraq's parliament yesterday rejected for a second time a draft law allowing foreign troops from countries other than the United States, including Britain, to remain after the end of the year.

The draft law, which was rejected in a voice vote, would allow all foreign troops other than Americans to stay in Iraq until the end of July.

It was also rejected earlier in the week and is expected to be brought for another vote after Christmas.

• It emerged yesterday that the Pentagon could double the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 – the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

The top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said between 20,000 and 30,000 additional US troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 December 2008 12:06 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Iraq , War in Iraq
 
1

,

21/12/2008 00:49:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

POSTMARK,-55,

China, 21/12/2008 01:48:28
#1 Harry "Dingy" Reid,
I'd like to hear the tune you'd sing if it was your country bogged down under an illegal occupation of foreign forces that are slaughtering your fellow countrymen/women and children.
Exactly what are the Iraqis guilty of Harry? Why is it that your troops are still there after not having found a single weapon of mass destruction and after having captured and killed Saddam Hussein? As long as your troops are terrorizing Iraq and the rest of the Middle East you will see factions from there terrorize in retaliation. What goes around comes around and you guys will keep reaping what you've sown and are currently sowing.
3

IH8 censors,

everywhere 21/12/2008 02:00:49
I wonder why he is afraid to go by Michael?

Don't be too impressed with his Sir title; don't forget her majesty was pressured into knighting Elton John also.
4

IH8 censors,

everywhere 21/12/2008 02:05:56
And if he knew was he was talking about he would not be the "the former chief of the general staff"
5

,

21/12/2008 02:57:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

21/12/2008 02:58:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

POSTMARK,-55,

China, 21/12/2008 03:07:30
#5 Vida Dosa.,
Eventhough I can't recall ever having agreed with Lynne on anything, I sincerely believe that she only goes by the name Lynne, and not any other.
Many people may happen to use the same or similar phrase or saying, that however doesn't make them the same person.
Lynne also had the fortitude last week to apologize to me when I proved my point to her, and I admire her for that, all the other posters you have named as being Lynne have never shown that resolve, they are rude and are here only to cause trouble. Lynne is a person of high conviction and that says a lot to me.
8

brian mcc,

Gilmore 21/12/2008 03:12:34
It's time to re-group.
From Iraq to Afghanistan.
The war on terror has shifted.

"Get out and take the troops with you...'

Rather a duty shift in N. Ireland than the hell of the Middle East. Occupation closer to home.

'Get out and take the troops with you.'
9

,

21/12/2008 03:31:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

,

21/12/2008 03:34:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

jarmon,

houston 21/12/2008 04:03:34
Postmark-i just have to comment concerning your anti american views.I don't consider the u.s. to be terrorizing the iraqis.There are iraqis who are now freer than they were under sadam,and yet many seem ungrateful to the americans.Nonetheless,it was stupid to overthrow sadam instead of using him to counter the iranians,who pose a real threat to us in america.Those are the guys who wouldn't think twice about nuking the city i live in.No matter what america does,the radical islamists would kill all americans if they could.The chinese have no such worries.Yes,i think america should be involved in the middle and near east.But for the literal life of me,i wish we had someone here who knew what they were doing,instead of the clowns who've been running the show.
12

,

21/12/2008 04:15:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

POSTMARK,-55,

China, 21/12/2008 04:25:05
#11 jarmon,
I am not anti American, but I am 100% against what your administration is doing in the name of Democracy.
The very name Democracy conjures up images of having total freedom and the choice of your destiny, the American administation has made a criminal laughing stock out of that by trying to force its ideals down unwilling and innocent people and if they resist they end up being killed, would you want someone like China for instance do it to your country in the name of Communism?
I would respect America if it could and would stay home, that's why I respect China, they leave the rest of the world to sort out its own problems whilst staying at home and keeping its own house in order.
14

Guga II,

Rockall 21/12/2008 07:06:00
#1 Dingy.

Why are you called "dingy". Are you really grimy, dirty and dull?
15

Guga II,

Rockall 21/12/2008 07:12:29
#13 Skidmark.

Whilst I agree with your comments about the actions of the Americans, you are forgetting about the actions of your host country, China.

The Chinese gangster government illegally invaded, occupied and annexed Tibet, and have been carrying out a policy of terror and genocide of the Tibetan people.

Not only are they terrified on one old man, the Dalai Lama, but they even kidnapped and murdered an eight year old boy, the Panchen Lama, as they were obviously terrified of him too.

And please refrain from your usual disgusting name calling, i.e. referring to the Panchen Lama as a smurf. It ill becomes a soon-to-be father to refer to a child that way.
16

,

21/12/2008 07:48:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Kenny A,

21/12/2008 07:50:09
General Jackson is a proven soldier of high capability, and his views should be listened to if not agreed with.

He has earned his right to comment and he was closer to this than any poster.
18

eric,

21/12/2008 08:36:45
Have your dummy back mike,remember dunkirk,silly little man.
19

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 21/12/2008 09:48:14
#18

"remember dunkirk,silly little man".

You are a jerk. Remember Viet Nam?
20

Paddi,

21/12/2008 12:10:38
Yet he sat and said nothing when he was chief of the defence staff, he said nothing about the appauling conditions and lack of equipment that his men had to endure.Contrast Gen Dannatt, speaking up for his soliders to Jackson who obediently did what the criminal politicians told him to do, not an excuse at nuremberg!
21

,

21/12/2008 12:28:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 21/12/2008 12:40:31
General Jackson's criticism has echoes of Montgomery's arrogance during World War II when he was absolutely convinced that British tactics were much superior to those of the Supreme Commander "Ike" Eisenhower's.

Privately, Churchill did all he could to prevent Montgomery leading the Allied Forces, and after Roosevelt made it clear that it had to be a US Supreme Commander, Churchill took every opportunity to brief against Monty. In the early years of the War, Churchill had already gone through incompetent British generals like toy soldiers, and even he knew that Ike was a winner.

After the War, self-publicist Montgomery slated the Yanks at every turn but Eiesenhower maintained a dignified silence although privately he believed Limey's like Montgomery had no real concept of modern warfare. Ike had immense admiration for the British Tommy but believed there were too many Colonel Blimps.


23

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 21/12/2008 13:03:48
Almost as bad as the other Michael Jackson in his way.He is the one who did the governments bidding in the ruination of 250years or more of Scottish Regimental traditions.He consigned regiments who carried the day in many a conflict to anonymity.Scotland owes him naught but contempt.
24

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 21/12/2008 13:08:38
#15 The usual crude response to #13 by name and usual tripe on the subject of Tibet.Tibet is and will remain an integral part of China. Your repetitive lies will not change history,no matter how many times you repeat them.56 nationalities comprise the country known as China.One of that 56 is Tibet.Get over it.
25

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 21/12/2008 13:11:11
It was the british in 1913 who caused the problems in Tibet,which have whickered on since.Colonial british from oppressed India that is.Truth is obviously anathema to you Guga!
26

,

21/12/2008 13:18:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

21/12/2008 13:26:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Paddi,

21/12/2008 14:38:14
#22 This is about Jackson nothing in this article "echo’s" Montgomery, stay on thread or find somewhere else to air your prejudices, thank you.
29

,

21/12/2008 14:57:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

,

21/12/2008 16:00:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

,

21/12/2008 16:19:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Bele's bane,

Scotland 21/12/2008 17:39:34
Calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq a war is an insult to all the Iraqi dead!

It is a war if the country being invaded had any chance of being able to defend itself against its occupiers and there were lawful, demonstrably justified reasons to launch the invasion.

The final indignity inflicted on Iraqis was to install an American compliant puppet government!

33

Scythia,

21/12/2008 19:16:56
Blaming someone else reflects badly on the General. He should look at the performance of his Government and his own commanders first before criticising others..
34

,

22/12/2008 00:11:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

,

22/12/2008 03:29:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

common sense voice,

22/12/2008 08:24:17
well we all know that you can't beat the British army and the yanks have been a laughing stock forever... their greater man power and hardware always winning the day at the expence of too many of their own men.

However, unless your a total sick-case how can you really want to sign up to kill or be killed? War is wrong at the man in the street level. If you must go to war.... just fire some missile across, when they queue up with white flags u know thy're beat..

The mossies have had it coming for a long time and will continue to get it coming for a lot longer to come... we can't really loose end of the day.. Russia, China the US and most of Eu don't want these guys around.
37

Pocket Dictionary,

22/12/2008 10:10:56
As with Lockerbie, the US needed a soft target to vent its revenge on. 1988 - Libya was the fall guy. In 2003 Bush and his Neo-Con pals decided Iraq should be the patsy for the Twin Towers.

It looks like the detonator from Lockerbie was a 'plant' to blame Libya. As the non-existent WMD was the excuse to invade Iraq.

Bush and his cronies walk into the sunset. Leaving a mess behind for others to sort out, including the current global financial mess which was ignited by America's unregulated market, instigated by Bush's cronies, following Gordon Greko's mantra 'greed is good'.
38

,

23/12/2008 05:08:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.