Personal reasons for wishing this Iraq occupation would end

I am very fortunate to have some wonderful friends in the United States, friends who, though I don't see them often, are as dear to me as people I see every day of the week. That's why, apart from any political opinions I may hold about the validity of the Iraq occupation, I wish the damn thing would end and the country handed back to the Iraqi leaders. I realise that can't happen overnight, but the longer the occupation goes on..and particularly now the there is a new British government led by Gordon Brown..the more strains are placed on Anglo-US relations, strains, which, for those of us who have always passionately opposed the conflict, have extended, to a limited degree, to personal relationships ..and I hate that.

It's not that you mean to hurt anyone but people always react strongly when their country and its attitudes are attacked and I have sensed a certain amount of hurt in dear friends across the Atlantic at some comments I have made on forums and on my blog. It's hard, though, if you feel deeply and passionately about something not to express that feeling forcibly.

The strains of this conflict are now beginning to tell at official level. Two days ago, General Sir Mike Jackson, former Head of the British Army (now retired) described the United States policy in Iraq as 'intellectually bankrupt' and has today been supported by Major General Tim Cross who was the most senior British officer in Iraq responsible for post-war planning. He has described the US post war planning as 'fatally flawed'. He describes Donald Rumsfeld as 'deaf to any advice or opinion'.



General Jackson

So far the American and British governments have played down these remarks but the US military has responded with criticisms of its own. General Jack Keane, responsible for the US 'surge' tactics currently driving the occupation around Baghdad, has described himself and the American military as 'frustrated' by the British tactics around Basra. He said 'the British must be disappointed with their lack of success in containing the insurgency there' suggesting that the UK troops have spent more time training the Iraqi army so that the British can pull out..and of course he is right.



Needless to say, British senior officers have been bitterly stung by such criticism but in one sense Keane is correct. He says 'Britain never had enough troops to do the job required of them'. And there is the nub of the problem for the UK government. The British Army does NOT have the resources for a land occupation on this scale...and unlike the US there is not the political commitment to build up our military to provide one and certainly it would be fiercely opposed by the British electorate. So we were politically committed by the Divine Tony to an occupation we really couldn't sustain.

What is clearly happening now is a simmering resentment building up between the US and British forces over policy in Iraq and there is clearly a desperate attempt by both governments to keep a lid on this. Which is why it would be in the interests of everyone if the focus was turned to creating a political structure which means Iraq can look after itself and remove all occupying forces. I hate to suggest this, particularly to any American readers, but maybe the UN has a role to play here?

Anyway to look on the bright side, there may be spats between the British and Americans over conduct of the occupation but it's nothing compared to the angry disagreements which broke out between our two nations near the end of the Second World War, particularly with regard to the taking, or otherwise, of Berlin. And we survived that and emerged as friends didn't we? And of course, we will survive this too...but in the interests of military harmony as well as my relationship with dear American friends, lets hope it's sooner rather than later!