Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Sep 1, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Army chief attacks US over Iraq
Daily Telegraph Link
First of all let's ask ourselves: is the American failure in Iraq strategical one or a result of tactical mistakes? Namely the strategy was wrong. And in this context tactical mistakes are irrelevant. It is possible that other tactical decisions would be even more disastrous.
I am sorry to have to say, but if Mike Jackson felt so strongly why did he wait until he could get his book out to provide his views?
Why did he not resign in protest while still in the job and by so doing red flag something was very wrong in a way no one else was in a position to do?
Was it something to do with Knighthoods, money, money or was it something to do with money. Sir Mike opened his mouth only when he was on the way out and could not be kicked out without pension and benefits.
He did alot of good but why must management only say things that the polititions want to hear before they get out????
I would have thought that if he has risen to that position as the head of the Armed Forces Tony should have listened to him! Or is it as per normal we just do the dirty work for our shilling?
Maybe he kept his gob shut so he could try and influence things from the inside. We all know that if CDS were to resign there would be a media storm for a couple of days and that would be about it. It would make absolutely no difference to this government whose arrogance continues to amaze me, though not as much as the gullible British public though who seem to endorse this arrogance by letting a multitude of sins pass by without holding them to account. The public would be more interested in the next series of Hells Kitchen than the resignation of the head of the armed forces. IMHO.
And even less to the Septics, who are who Jacko seems to be fundamentally blaming for the major mistakes. Incidentally, Mike Rose gives a fairly similar explanation in his book "Washington's War".
Probably because as such a senior figure, a high level message like that whould severely embarass both the British and the American Governments. It would have been interpreted as a hugely political act by someone who is supposed to be enntirely apolitical.
Jackson's lne is entirely consistent with the insider views revealed in Bob Woodward's trilogy about the war.
Separate names with a comma.