Did he mention anything about Gen Petraeus and his success, or is it all "old man griping" talk?

gary , austin, TX, USA

Hello, and welcome to 2003!

This story is timely and original.

Mike, Chicago, USA

A lot of us have known this for a long time, but the war mongering idiots in power, seem to be brain dead half of the time, to the blatantly obvious.
The sooner they are removed from power the better.

Ray, hemel hempstead, england

General Sir Mike Jackson has only just retired and his giving his personal opinion in his book which he is entitled to do. A British newspaper has picked up on this story and hes not shouting his opinion from the roof tops. He could not have made these comments in the past as he was the head of the Army and not allowed to make political statements. There was a split between the US and UK on how to deal with Iraq after the invasion. The British very early on wanted to keep the Iraqi Army in power while the US wanted to disband them all. In his opinion this was a mistaken decision. Other British Army officers have made the same point over the last 4 years.

Steve, Devon, England

"The head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq has condemned America’s postwar policy in the country as “intellectually bankrupt” and “very short-sighted”." Become wise after the fact! Regards,

Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India

A simple question: why did Sir Mike wait all these years to air his grievances?!,or is it a stunt to sell his book?!.

sam, Dallas, USA

I think this is incredible childish. I think this may just be a response to the American's saying Britain failed in its responsibilities in Iraq all though I thinks there's their's truth in both statements.

Hey at least for once they're highlighting problems and not hiding them.

Arron Taylor, Corby, Northamptonshire

Wait a second; wasn't Great Britain in the coalition of the willing on that whole Iraq thing? I seem to recall a great poo poo that Canada was failing to live upto its international responsibilties for insisting on seeing some hard evidence of Iraq's WMD before joining any war effort in Iraq?

Sometimes friends and allies should tell another ally when they are acting like jerks. Britain has come to this position a little late in the game to be pointing accusing fingers at the USA. When you break it, you have bought it.

Rob, Halifax, Canada

Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic were quite definitely "intellectually bankrupt" to even consider invading Iraq in order to impose a puppet government and, more importantly, get their greedy hands on its natural resources. If these high ranking officers were so concerned about the lies being told by Western politicians they should have spoken out and exposed the lies for what they were.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

"Sir Mike blamed Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary, for much of the fiasco and said that his claims that American forces “don’t do nation-building” were “nonsensical”. "
Quite so.

But it is equally nonsensical to try to do nation-building with an already built nation. Iraq had been built by the British in the 20s and 30s. It was the only truly secular country/nation-state in the region.
And it is even more nonsensical to try to build a nation after having boasted that "we'll bring them back to the Middle ages" (and in somes cases even Stone Age). Some prominent Americans said so between 1991 and 1998.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

When war criminals fall out like this, the lies they sheltered behind at the time fall apart and the truth about the aggression comes out. It's time for both Mr Rumsfeld and Sir Mike (among others) to face trial for their respective parts in the criminal invasion.

Richard Cheeseman, Wellington, New Zealand

The very idea of invading Iraq was "intellectually bankrupt" particularly as the REAL motive was in order that the USA could get its hands on that country's natural resources.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

Jacko has gone tropo. Whilst I am sure he is right in what he is saying re the American planning black hole post invasion, does he really think that investing in retrospective blame gaming right now is appropriate? For heavan's sake, troops are in the field. Lady sailors, Iranians and silly billies come to mind.

SHERLOCK, ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA

The legacy of this illegal and immoral war is coming home to roost when erstwhile "friends and partners" accuse each other of incompetence. Then the scene is set for the next such war with Iran where - if the poodle were still reigning in 10 Downing Street - would have seen more of the same. While Sir Mike has the right to accuse Donald of intellectual bankruptcy, one needs to ask how much of it is exhibited by Sir Mike himself. Why didn't Sir Mike "refuse" to attack the innocent people of Iraq at the time? Commenting in this way after the events, one can give Donald the benefit of the doubt to comment likewise. The war in Iraq is - and I repeat - is illegal whatever spin is applied to it. It is a war crime, period. For that matter the coalition, Brits and Americans especially, lost it before it even began.

Goldman, London, UK

sir mike is stating the obvious. many americans, and i'm sure many british knew the iraq invasion was the height of folly before the invasion. there was nothing that those who didn't follow the absolutely illogical arguments of american leadership could do. the general, however, could have resigned.

jack dingler, dallas, usa/texas

It is about time that the true state of affairs came into the open.
Never in the history of war has a conquering army disbanded all defeated forces,declared that they were soldiers and not policemen sat back and watched whilst Abdul took the golden toilet from the palace and Malik cleaned out the massive arms dumps around the country in order to carry on the time honoured tribal wars either against "usual" enemies or the invading forces.

Alan.G.Daugherty, Whitehaven Cumbria, UK

And, pray tell, how did Sir Mike suggest that we control Bathist security forces after the war?

gary , austin, TX, USA