General Sir Mike Jackson, whose forthcoming autobiography is about to hit the bookshelves, has some harsh words for our US Allies in general and for Donald Rumsfeld in particular as serialised in the Daily telegraph (see report here).

His excoriating attack begs a number of questions.

If Rumsfeld was so ‘intellectually bankrupt’ did the good soldier Jackson make representations to that effect to his political masters? If so with what result?

If the conduct of the aftermath was so poor (and presumably putting our troops at greater risk), why did he not resign when there was no change in direction?

If Defence Chiefs had doubts about the dodgy “45 minutes” dossier even before the claim that Iraq could attack us at short notice:

“Its release caused a stir in military circles,” reveals Sir Mike, particularly the suggestion that the UK could face a threat of attack at 45 minutes’ notice. “We all knew that it was impossible for Iraq to threaten the UK mainland. Saddam’s Scud missiles could barely have reached our bases on Cyprus, and certainly no more distant target.” (my emphasis)

Why did Defence Chiefs not resign in the face of this barefaced lie by the Government, which they knew to be a barefaced lie, that was being used to get MPs to vote for war?

I wonder of the good General really was wise to write this book which seems set fair further to diminish his reputation.

Advertisements