Second British general slams U.S. policy

[Lt_Ripley]

Second British general slams U.S. policy in postwar Iraq

By Adrian Croft

9 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. plans for handling Iraq after the 2003 invasion were "fatally flawed," a retired British general said, adding that the U.S. administration had refused to listen to British concerns about postwar planning.

Major General Tim Cross said he had talked to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld before the invasion about the need to have international support and enough troops on the ground to reconstruct Iraq.

"He didn't want to hear that message. The U.S. had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy," Cross told the Sunday Mirror.

"Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea -- they simply shut it out," Cross, the most senior British officer involved in planning post-war Iraq, added.

His comments echoed those of General Mike Jackson, head of the British army during the invasion, who was quoted by The Daily Telegraph on Saturday as describing Rumsfeld's approach as "intellectually bankrupt."

The unusually outspoken comments by former top military men follow weeks of commentary, mainly in the U.S. press, suggesting British forces have failed in southern Iraq and are set to flee.

Defense analyst Charles Heyman told Reuters the criticism was surfacing "because everybody realizes this is now a failed policy and they are all casting around for scapegoats."

"Why didn't someone resign at the time and say this is foolish and foolhardy?" he said.

He said the recriminations were not helpful to future military and diplomatic relations between Washington and London, which have traditionally boasted of a "special relationship."

PULLOUT FROM BASRA

British troops are expected to pull out of their last base in Basra city in the next few days to concentrate their presence in an airbase outside the city.

This is part of a plan to hand over control of the province to Iraqi security forces by the end of 2007 and pave the way for an eventual pullout of all British forces.

But the departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair in June to be succeeded by Gordon Brown has raised speculation that Britain could speed up the withdrawal of British forces.

Blair had staked his personal reputation on standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with the United States.

Heyman said it would be very difficult for the British to withdraw entirely from the airbase as they were needed to protect supply routes and, if necessary, the oil fields.

He said he expected quite large numbers of British troops still to be there six months from now.

William Hague, foreign affairs spokesman for Britain's opposition Conservatives, said on Sunday the generals' concerns strengthened the case for Britain to hold a full-scale inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war.

The British government has successfully resisted previous opposition calls for an inquiry while British troops are operating in Iraq though it has not ruled one out in the future.

Hague, whose Conservatives supported the Iraq war, said "very crucial mistakes have been made."

Planners "clearly underestimated ... the number of troops that would be needed for an effective occupation force in Iraq (and) they clearly made a mistake in the immediate disbandment of the Iraqi army," he told Sky News.

Rumsfeld resigned last year after becoming a focal point for criticism of the U.S. administration's handling of the unpopular Iraq war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070902/pl_nm/...yL1tLSf6HxoM3wV

[Moondoggy]

Not surprising to me at all. In fact I think the general population of both Brtitain and France have close to a 60% negative view of American foreign policies. They dislike us in overall times of peace, and wet their panties when things like WW1 and WW2 happen. The British and French would both be enjoying bratwurst and pretzels on a daily basis if it were not for us warmongering Americans

[ships-cat]

Not surprising to me at all. In fact I think the general population of both Brtitain and France have close to a 60% negative view of American foreign policies. They dislike us in overall times of peace, and wet their panties when things like WW1 and WW2 happen. The British and French would both be enjoying bratwurst and pretzels on a daily basis if it were not for us warmongering Americans

More like Potatoes, Vodka and Pravda.

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

More like Potatoes, Vodka and Pravda.

Meow Purr.

I'll take the Vodka... К вашему брату здоровья

[ships-cat]

I'll take the Vodka... К вашему брату здоровья

that's clever - how do you do it Questionmark ?

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

that's clever - how do you do it Questionmark ?

Meow Purr.

What?

[stevewinn]

Not surprising to me at all. In fact I think the general population of both Brtitain and France have close to a 60% negative view of American foreign policies. They dislike us in overall times of peace, and wet their panties when things like WW1 and WW2 happen. The British and French would both be enjoying bratwurst and pretzels on a daily basis if it were not for us warmongering Americans

Hi Moon,

Your most probably right in what you say about us (UK) needing America's help during world war 2, but remember during the first gulf war and the present conflicts both in Iraq and Afghanistan we are the only big country thats stood shoulder to shoulder and been good allies to the United States and i would like to add, unlike America in WW2 we havent charged you $$££ (with added interest) for the privillege of calling Britain its ally, when the war broke out in 1939 (not 41) the allies that come to the aid of Britain (free of charge) in our hour of need was mainly the Common wealth countries Australia, New Zeland, Canada, but a special mention has to go out to Canada who had nothing to gain but like the rest of the common wealth never charged us for the privilege of calling them our Allies, i know America stopped us from going bankrupt, but Britain played a key role in defeating Hitler — but at enormous economic cost. In 1945, the UK was all but bankrupt. we couldnt hardly afford to import sufficient food. but in our desperation we (UK) turned to our wealthiest ally and begged for help.The U.S. offered $4.3 billion at 2% a year, but Two years later the U.S. donated more than $13 billion under the Marshall Plan to pay for the reconstruction of war shattered countries of Europe, including Germany, we made our last repayment of $84 million to the U.S. treasury in 2006,

Steve

am truly grateful to the brave soldiers and people from all countries who fought and paid the ultimate price so i can sit here and write this reply.

[ships-cat]

What?

The Cyrillic characters.

Meow Purr.

[Borat]

US wanted to hit the UK hard in war debt to keep it poor . The last thing usa wanted was a post-war strong uk , not when it had it's eyes on much of the uk's old empire. British never realize this UK-US 'special relationship'is a one sided deal. The only country usa looks after is israel, and that is because it's power structure , the government, media and corportations are infested with them.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Borat

[Moondoggy]

Hi Moon,

Your most probably right in what you say about us (UK) needing America's help during world war 2, but remember during the first gulf war and the present conflicts both in Iraq and Afghanistan we are the only big country thats stood shoulder to shoulder and been good allies to the United States and i would like to add, unlike America in WW2 we havent charged you $$££ (with added interest) for the privillege of calling Britain its ally, when the war broke out in 1939 (not 41) the allies that come to the aid of Britain (free of charge) in our hour of need was mainly the Common wealth countries Australia, New Zeland, Canada, but a special mention has to go out to Canada who had nothing to gain but like the rest of the common wealth never charged us for the privilege of calling them our Allies, i know America stopped us from going bankrupt, but Britain played a key role in defeating Hitler — but at enormous economic cost. In 1945, the UK was all but bankrupt. we couldnt hardly afford to import sufficient food. but in our desperation we (UK) turned to our wealthiest ally and begged for help.The U.S. offered $4.3 billion at 2% a year, but Two years later the U.S. donated more than $13 billion under the Marshall Plan to pay for the reconstruction of war shattered countries of Europe, including Germany, we made our last repayment of $84 million to the U.S. treasury in 2006,

Steve

am truly grateful to the brave soldiers and people from all countries who fought and paid the ultimate price so i can sit here and write this reply.

Britain is a great country with a great history, what scares me is the fact that both our countries will be ruined from within and not from bombs or any other type of attack. We will in essence shoot ourselves in the foot with horrible immigration policy and this witchcraft called political correctness!

[Lord Umbarger]

There is always someone who will say whatever to get a few minutes of tv time. It's odd to me how people will totally ignore the majority of military experts yet will run around like a chicken with it's head cut off over some out of the way general who thinks that we are losing.

O.K., so this guy thinks that we are doing a bad job. It's on the net. Where are the reports of hte obviously huundreds of other generals that support what we are doing? If we are going to make a stink over this one, let's do it for the many, many others as well.

[Moondoggy]

There is always someone who will say whatever to get a few minutes of tv time. It's odd to me how people will totally ignore the majority of military experts yet will run around like a chicken with it's head cut off over some out of the way general who thinks that we are losing.

O.K., so this guy thinks that we are doing a bad job. It's on the net. Where are the reports of hte obviously huundreds of other generals that support what we are doing? If we are going to make a stink over this one, let's do it for the many, many others as well.

Very little of what is right with the world ever makes it to the TV screen.

[Lord Umbarger]

Very little of what is right with the world ever makes it to the TV screen.

True, dead babies make for a better news story than troops building a new school for girls in the arab world. I wonder why that is?

[ninjadude]

There is always someone who will say whatever to get a few minutes of tv time. It's odd to me how people will totally ignore the majority of military experts yet will run around like a chicken with it's head cut off over some out of the way general who thinks that we are losing.

O.K., so this guy thinks that we are doing a bad job. It's on the net. Where are the reports of hte obviously huundreds of other generals that support what we are doing? If we are going to make a stink over this one, let's do it for the many, many others as well.

and yet you so easily dismiss all the obviously hundreds of other generals that agree that DON't support what we are doing. This is certainly not a one of. To say so means you're missing a great deal of news by only watching the neocon house channel - faux news.

[Moondoggy]

True, dead babies make for a better news story than troops building a new school for girls in the arab world. I wonder why that is?

The only think I can think of is that fear motivates people in a more aggressive way. We see it everywhere in advertisement and of course politics. When is the last time you heard a democrat or republican applaud the efforts of the other? Never happen, they will demonize each other then after work have cocktails together because they know what motivates the people:Fear!