The Invasion of Iraq was well planned and executed. However it is obvious that no-body considered what the fall out would be from a successfull invasion. At least when Alied forces & rRussia when back into librate Europe inn1943/44 they had a plan,which innhindsight was 'flawed', but it worked.

John, dublin,

war as they call it is actually police action , the enemy hides in between civilians and we are suppose to stand there and let them unnecessarily kil our soldiers, this is the first general thats been held liable all other generals like in the captain kali case we are suppose to obey orders when we do then sonme ass reporter decides along with the public that the general can be as wrong ascan be so cort marshall the soldier that followed orders,you want to win this war its real easy function like it's a war no matter whose there level the goround and anything thats there. realistically war was never declared on us we do not own or contol the world,unless those in con gress that continue to commit genecide and get away with it while having othersw in the world thats doing yhe same be indicted for the same thing were doing adolph hitler will knock on your door then what

Dennis White, Beaumont, riverside/Calif

Does the US Administration have a strategy? As a retired management consultant, a strategy must have three things:
1. A clear statement of objectives.
2. A plan to achieve these objectives.
3. A process to implement the plan effectively and efficiently.

I'm not sure that the US has these things, especially #1.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Pinchbeck attitudes to Service equipment have been sapping British forces for well over 50 years (remember the "Sandys Storm" ? - don't mention TSR2, which eventually metamorphosed into the Tornado once outside finance had been found, from Germany and Italy). The policy seems to have been inherited from the infamous "5 (or 10?) year rule" of the '30s ... And of course there are Kipling's "Tommy Atkins" comments to mull over...
Once the "post-Soviet peace boom" had become the slick politician's easy-out, we find that BAE Systems, for example, shorn of willing financing from Tornado and Typhoon partners, found that the only (fairly) reliable source of funding for the defence projects they're good at, was The Pentagon, with all that that implies for "independent" military action by the British government.
And then look at Transport, Housing, Education ... Doesn't it seem the UK Govs just haven't the means to attain their Big Ambitions ??? But who dare say so ???

John Price, Cintegabelle, France

While it's nice to hear someone supporting the Armed forces in this way , forgive me for being a little cynical in my outlook . But having served in the Army for over 20 years I have to suppress a yawn whenever I hear or read anyone who supports the Conservative party going on about cuts and equipment for our troops. I still remember the cut's following the collapse of the former Soviet Union in our Armed Forces, the then Conservative Government made.
Whilst I was in the Services we were always short of equipment , whether clothing, arms or vehicles. I still am priviledged to be associated with our Armed Forces as a civilian working with the Royal Marines and they have far better equipment now than I ever saw. What hacks the troops off more than anything is Politicians scoring points off the backs of our Lad's for their sqalid little poitical parties.

David Eastwood, Bideford N. Devon,

This one forced me to return to the dictionary. '...directing large scale military operations ...' was over long ago. '... skill in managing or planning ...' seems to apply to the post-invasion period. Taking this and relating it to the occupation produces gas and lots of it.
Delusion seems a better fit: '... a false persistent belief maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary ...'. Now this seems to fit. Rather than a 'strategy' we have a 'delusion'.
Glad I did this. It helps to know precisely what is going on.
Cheers!

Thomas Clark, Portland, Oregon, US

Are we still in a coalition with the US in Iraq or not? If we are, we must be proactive in achieving the objectives of the coalition, and not just act in short-term British interests.

Dave, Southampton, UK

How do France and Germany do it? Asks Peter Kaldor. They are part of NATO Peter, albeit very selective in their interpretations of the NATO Charter but members all the same. They can rest assured that if attacked, the USA, UK and Canada would come their aid. The Navy's carriers are not a waste of money, or an extravagance, they are essential, particularly if you want air support at the drop of a hat anywhere in the world. Remember the Falklands? HMS Illustrious sold to Australia, HMS Hermes sold to India. We managed to claw both back, without them the Task Force could never have sailed, the Falklands would now be the Las Malvinas. 12 air-to-air combat capable Sea Harriers equipped with US Sidewinder missiles and "Blue Fox" radar, plus the sinking of the Belgrano by one of the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines were the factors that clinched the issue - plus of course the Royal Marines and Paras. Per Mare Per Terram (By Sea By Land).

Bill Woodcock, Stavanger, Norway

its no lingar a defence policy, but an colonial policy.Men & woman always risked their lives for a few coins,miners builder, police,ect but the old adage applies lions led by donkeys.

michael joseph heavey, cahersiveen>adams towns, madness

It's worth noting that British defence spending has increased in real terms in every annual budget since labour came to power. The last budget increase was only a few months ago and included an additional £15bn and provision for two new aircraft carriers and their attendant airgroups, thus reducing our dependance on American air power Lord Drayson and others have done a brilliant job procuring the Mastiff PPV in only six months from identifying the need to deploying the vehicle. Now I'm very much of the opinion that defence spending could stand to be increased but bear in mind that staffing levels in the army are still lower than authorised, not because there is no money to pay for them but because the army cannot attract new recruits when jobs that don't involve being shot at are so plentiful.

James, Portland, Oregon

Lord Rees-Mogg states that the British Army is
dependant on American Airpower and cannot really
fight a campaign without it. Therefore why are we
spending so much money on the Royal Air Force and
not enough on the Army. I would suggest Army wages
for a trained soldier should start at £20,000 a year and the Army itself needs to be expanded by 3
infantry battalions, allowing a new light Brigade to be
formed, plus equipment needs to be improved. This
should be paid for by having a smaller Airforce,
maybe half the size it is now.

Roderick, Hampshire, England

Wow !! Is this really the case with the British military? Is it true that prison wardens are better paid than military personel in Great Britain? Why has nothing been said about this so far and why has nothing been done about this within the last four years especially since a greater demand has been made of the military in recent years? If this is true then Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organization were accurate when they assessed the British military as inadequate and a toothless bulldog. Gentlemen, it is time to change your priorities and modernize your military. A lot of money has been made by the British Govt to rebuild Iraq, it is time to invest in a military that is prepared for the conflicts of the 21st century and not the 20th century. For example, the RAF's new Typhoon fighter is already very dated. The Russians, as announced by President Putin, are determined to launch the next great jet fighter after our American Raptor. Britain, WAKE UP !!!!!

Niwa, Atlanta, USA

Britain went to war, not because Britain was invaded or was at the slightest of risks to be invaded, but because of the "special relationship" it enjoyed (I wonder if that is still the case) with the US. What kind of a policy is this? In this country, it's profitable to be a criminal that a soldier as one would enjoy a better lifestyle as a criminal than a soldier. I for one do not wonder any more.

Goldman, London, UK

You know this, I know this and countless other's no this, so why doesn't the government know this? As an army daughter, girlfriend, sister and in-law I feel that it's about time high ranking officials and civil servants came down off their pedestals and started living in the real world.

Ami, dorchester,

I am sure that you are right in saying that we need a defence policy but I would submit that this needs to be supported by a comprehensive and PUBLIC statement of the perceived threat or requirement. Whatever the British history and tradition in military terms, one doesn t want to maintain a militaristic stance unless it is necessary. It is expensive and potentially disruptive. One would like to think that along with education, development and prosperity there would be the settlement of disputes by legal and diplomatic means rather than military confrontation. In this day of cost-cutting efficiency and public accountability, the spending of billions of pounds on two super-carriers, on the basis of a statement that we don t know what the threats may be, is ludicrous. If we are going to spend this amount of money, we want to know exactly what is the threat, where it is coming from, and why, and why alternative, cheaper methods cannot be employed to deflate or remove this perceived threat. This will help to avoid being held to ransom by speculative interests.

Henry Percy, London, UK

How do they do it France and Germany?

Peter Kaldor, Woking, U.K.

Said this time and time again. Defence spending needs to be vastly increased. Manpower needs to be hugely increased across all 3 services. Our soldiers, sailors and airman need to be looked after..their wives , partners and children need decent living conditions. As an Island we need to be prepared to have our taxes increased...get rid of the immigrants pulling on our reserves. Use the money elsewhere. There again most of the country don't realise we're fighting a war..they're more interested in reading about celebrities than what our brave forces are doing. Our Generals are right to hit back against the gutless MoD. It's easy to be an American guffawing as they're the richest country in the world...look at the size of the UK. Tell you what oh for a vastly increased SAS regiment. The Yanks dont even come close there.

kirk, Rotherham, UK

Business and techniques

Liuhongwei, DaLian, China

What a preposterous suggestion that money will solve the problems facing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem arises from inept political decisions which led to them being placed in a 'no win' situation.
They are fighting in terrain which suits the guerilla fighter; they can't recognise friend from foe and they do not have the manpower or equipment to defend themselves.
All this supposedly to support a reconstruction of two foreign countries abounding with terrorists and drug barons.
Lastly they are reviled by most of the population because they do not follow the teaching of Islam.
Only the politicians believe that this grave and terrible situation can be resolved. Our troops have done their bit - bring them home now!

trevorjj, Torbay, UK

British forces have been buying their own kit for at least the last thirty years. No matter which political party is in power they pay lip service to the welfare and conditions of the men on the ground. Vital equipment is needed by the Army to both protect the troops such as suitable armoured vehicles and to be able to carry out offensive operations. Oh ! I forgot these are peacekeeping missions we do not carry out offensive operations.....The politicians also over commit our troops without due thought and consideration to both the people on the ground and the impact on their families. When they return from operational duties the accommodation provided is sub-standard. The unwritten covenant between the armed forces and the politicians which provides for suitable equipment accommodation and condition of pay etc has been broken as so often it is now a joke.

C. Gauton, Warrington,

The problem with the - urgently essential - re-equipment of the Army is finding the money. If we won't scrap the anachronistic Typhoon, the insane Trident replacements and the uninspired new carriers that will be hostages to fortune, we could at least close the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that drops us into the holes out troops have to fight our way out of.

And we could simplify the Middle East situation with great benefit. Have America deal with Iraq, and Iran if it likes, while the USA in return leaves Afghanistan to us.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

The number one thing Britiain needs to do is to figure out whether, in future, it is going to defend itself, or rely on others to defend it. If the former, then the money must be spent on the armed forces. If the later, then there truly is no 'Great' left in Britain.

C Heathcote, Brick, USA, NJ

Why is this even an issue?

Gareth Davies, Munich, Germany

Totally disagree. We have the most consistant defence policy in the Western World. As you should know, Malcolm, whichever party is in power this policy remains the same - skivvy for the Americans and hope that they reward our grovelling when push comes to shove.

As every war from the Second the the Falklands has shown the Americans are far too sensible to do any such thing. Unlike us, they don't risk their soldiers' lives unless it's in their national self interest.

Our problem is not dodgy housing or somebody buying kit A instead of kit B. Our problem is that we have a political elite who are willing to sacrifice the British Army on the altar of their quisling instincts.

Bob, Liverpool, UK

You can call it what you will, it's still a retreat. The Brit beaurocrats have yet to develop a spine. They would rather spend your money on multi-culti pablum instead of their troops. Maybe, now that France seems to be growing a backbone we could enlist them on the fight against islamofacism. Thanks.

Charles, Philadelphia,

Gen Petraeus' report will be optimistic, because that is what Washington wants. It would be naive to be taken in by it.

There is zero real evidence on the ground of surge success. All the casualty figures are up in comparison to last year. The much-trumpetted agreements with the Sunni shaikhs in Anbar (against al-Qa'ida) are a very slippery basis for optimism, a house built on sand. Today, the shaikhs get money and weapons; tomorrow they can turn them on the US again.

Alex, Paris, France

Difficult to support an army if you already have an army of asylum seekers to feed and clothe. An NHS black hole to fill and an over generous welfare state to carry.

Phill Barlow, Heswall, England

This all sounds good, so let us have, say a 5% increase in VAT to pay for it and while we are at it, another 5% for better health care.

Dave, lasuanne, Switzerland

The failure of "defence" policy was in attacking a country with no evidence that it would ever attack us. Afghanistan was acceptable, Iraq was not. And let us not forget the disbandments and reductions under the Blair/Brown leadership. This wasn't going to reduce our fighting strength, but they disbanded battalions and squadrons and scrapped fighting ships. It would be a delicious irony if labour were to be evicted from office by a mass turnout of servicemen and their supporters as a reaction to their recent failures to provide adequate staffing and equipment for our armed forces.

KR, Stockport,

A very true and well reasoned article.It has been painfully obvious that the woe's of our over used ,underpaid,soldiers have not been addressed practically or morally by this nasty ignorant government.As an ex officer with a son who is a serving officer,and has served on both fronts I am naturally very concerned and angry with our Prime Minister.A man of low morality and principles who is and was in his last job,directly reponsible for the present situation.I just hope that my son and all the other serving soldiers will survive this base person.

Robert, Derby,

The only way to set our Armed Forces to rights regarding manning, equipment, and accomodation is to change the deep rooted culture of parsimony towards defence in HM Treasury and in it's lackey the MoD . Unfortunately cultures take a long time to change. A good start would be to start cutting out the massive excess of bureaucrats "responsible" for funding defense in HM Treasury and for overseeing defence in the MoD. This would motivate the remaining staffs to change culture quickly and to free up funds for the sharp end of the Military.

We have been "taken short" over provision for Defense and other military operations, eg Falklands, far too often. Come the next crisis we will have as little time to get tooled up as we were for Iraq and in Afghanistan. What will happen if President Putin and newly resurgent Russia turn nasty?

Regards

W D Toulman, Walkington,

I totally support these views.If politicians want to send troops off to risk their livesw in distant places they should, at the evry least be properly equipped and paid.The way things are going, with troops and families neglected and overstretched, we will sooner or later have a real recruiting problem and very limited forces for their primary role - the defence of Britain!

kay, leeds,

I find it incredible that the so called politicians or decision makers of our country could not have forseen what could happen when a corrupt regime is toppled.
Although different circumstances prevailed in Iraq and Afganistan the resultant vacuum created where there is no real effective government or army/police after winning a land war has spelled "defeat" so far as planning and stragegy are concerned.
Its easy to blame Rumsfeld but who took us into this unprepaired and unthought situation.

pete worgan, bristol, UK

British forces have been defeated in Basra. Ignore the lies and Alice in Blunderland drivel of Labour politicians about handing over to the Iraqi government forces. When did a victorious army ever leave the battlefield at dead of night?

Mike, Torquay,

Be happy with your defense policy.Here in Portugal we do not have nothing...

miles, Lisboa,

What else can one expect from this labour government, wasting billions on the NHS and doctors pay while leaving our boys to suffer without even the basics of the US army. It's a disgrace.

D Case, newquay,

The reaction of this General???
Here in America we call this a monday morning quarterback.

Jacquelin Ouellette, Montreal, Canada

Gordon Brown seems to hate the Armed Forces - probably because unlike his beloved, parasitical bureaucrats they are not natural Labour voters. Why they bother to fight for his traitorous, incompetent government is a source of complete mystery to me.

Gervas Douglas, Andorra la Vella,

I agree. The US and UK governments should greatly improve pay and conditions for their militaries. National leaders have become so infatuated with military technology that they neglect people in the field. Big bombs can level an area, but if you want to secure an area without killing the entire population, you need military personal.

Joseph, NYC, USA

I recall as a seven year old brat when with my friends we would wait for a daddy long legs to fly into our room. We would pull a leg off of it and then let it go. We would repeatedly catch it again and perform the same operation to enable us to judge just how many legs we had to amputate until it was no longer able to function.
The comparison may be crude but to my unlightened mind is this not exactly what has been done to our Armed Services ?. We hear a load of loud Political announcements of Military spending but see nothing for the here and now. Its almost like watching Paul Daniels performing a fantastic illusionary trick on an audience. {Ive chopped her in half but hey !!!! she is still whole}
We may take on the nose the American charge that Our Military is a shadow of its former capacity to deliver, as so well expounded by Sr,Gen, Jackson. We do not indeed have a foreign policy with teeth.
Just as true is Rumsfields intelectual bankrupcy that has led to this shambles !!

Denis Tighe, Glenrothes, UK

General Jackson would have served both his country and his men far better by demanding of the government (Blair and Brown) to see the post-invasion plan.
As this was not possible he should have told Blair - 'Hell no we won't go'!

Eddie Reader, birmingham, uk

Britain does have a defence policy, and many tens of billions a year to supoport it. What Britain does need is leaders with backbone to implement that policy - and nothing else.

If Britain wants to do something not allowed for in the Defence Policy it needs to be approved, financed and resourced not just tagged on to massage someone's ego in the belief that the military will always respond in the positive.

Jim D, Norwich, uk

After leaving the army I became a lawyer. On the law course we went on a visit to a high security prison and I can safely say that the standard of accomodation the prisoners enjoyed was significantly better than I experienced in the military. Just another example of how low a value the government puts on service personnel. Things may have changed in the last ten years but from what we read I doubt it. What kind of country is it when criminal scum enjoy better lifestyles than those who risk their lives for us?

Martin, Glasgow,

It used to be said, back in WW I days that Britain possessed tremendous troops but poor generals. Over time, the troops have retained their prowess & the generals have improved out of all recognition - c.f the Falklands War, Gulf War 1.etc.
However, the biggest obstacle the forces have to contend with is the MOD & the burocrats. [Who else, for example, didn't know that the Iranians were looking to take Western hostages other than the MOD !?]
Unfortunately, the penny-pinching and the sheer callousness of the Ministry costs lives -valuable lives. Put in perspective, the UK willingly forks out billions for criminals (& their dependents) who should be deported or locked up permanently, whilst denying our forces the equipment they need and the care they deserve. The MOD should be held criminally responsible for their negligence.

M.Lester, London, UK

You have hit the nail on the head but it is the whole of the armed forces which have been allowed to deteriate.This Government is great at talking big but useless at delivery.This is true throughout their remit.
As was said in a report I read,one soldier said something like"Would you join a company who supplied you with a 30 year old car to do your job in the corpoate world.Look at the age of the helicopters,land rovers,etc and you get the idea.
I think now there are 2 civil servants(in the MOD) to every serviceman-shows you how wrong the priorities of this government are.

Nigel Wheatcroft, Wimbledon, uk

I was staggered to learn that British soldiers have to pay for their own equipment - not all, but some - when they are rotated on tour of duty in war theatres such as Iraq or Afghanistan. What does that say about the state of the British army?

John Adam, Paris, France