The Anglo American Alliance between the transatlantic cousins may well be suffering its worst since the defection of the Cambridge mafia to the old USSR.
Apparently a senior British military commander who was involved in the invasion of Iraq said very angrily (in private), according to Richard Norton-Taylor, security affairs editor of the Guardian, that Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, should be tried for war crimes.
The General also made some nasty remarks about Rumsfeld’s incompetence in the latter’s handling of the military situation after invading Iraq. Britian’s foreign policy experts at Whitehall, its equivalent to our Wisma Putra, had warned the British cabinet prior to the war that the Bush Administration has no post-invasion strategy.
KTemoc feels that this statement ought to further qualified - the US State Department did try to work out something but unfortunately the Defence Department under the neo-cons, who had Bush's ears, had been the one guilty of not developing the post-invasion strategy. Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State had been utterly frustrated in being continuously sidelined by Bush because of Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Zionist neo-cons' overwhelming influence over the President. In fact, the neo-con cabal deliberately 'cold storaged' Powell because they didn't want his internationalist approach.
To sum it, the Americans [minus the outcast State Department] were clueless on Iraq other than to invade it, undoubtedly at the furious urgings and eggings of the Zionist neo-cons [Pearl, Wolfowitz, Elliot, Feitch etc] in the US Administration together with their non-Zionist neo-con colleagues [Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc].
The American decision to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion, though supposedly the formal responsibility of the US proconsul Paul Bremer, was pre-emptively seized upon by Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld’s thoughtless decision brought about a power vacuum among the Iraqis in the postwar situation, and has been the major cause of the chaos existing there today. Even the Washington neo-cons have now criticised that idiotic decision. The British were absolutely angry with Rumsfeld's interference because it conflicted with their instructions to their commanders in Iraq.
Rumsfeld has also been stubborn in his decision not to increase US military strength to the 450,000 that had been advocated prior to the invasion and again only recently. The lack of US strength to ensure a secure environment has not only encouraged widespread insurgency but also factional violence that has resulted in a civil war. The US military main answer seems to be committing more My Lai-like incidents.
KTemoc reckons the British has had more experience dealing with occupation of foreign territories where they would usually involve the local forces to participate in the administration of the occupied territories. That’s how they colonised India and nearly one-third of the world. That’s how they ensure that immediately post WWII there’s no chaos or anarchy when they used the repugnant Japanese troops to administer their territories and other places like Vietnam – of course the British ulterior aim was to ensure their colonials didn’t get independent ideas, but their tactic worked.
While the Americans have had such experience too, in Japan and Europe post WWII, this time in Iraq they were under the influence of Israeli interests which was more to do with Israeli security rather than the pacification and stability of the occupied Arab territories.
The Americans were being run on an Israeli agenda which certainly doesn't mind a chaotic Iraq, a potentially rich and therefore potentially dangeorus foe.