General Michael Janus Jackson - his failures in leading the Army are raised by ex Colonel Patrick Mercer MP
Tory MP, Patrick Mercer, (Con. Newark) 51, a former Colonel in the Sherwood Forester's (and also a reporter on BBC 4's Today programme) , who is now the Conservative Shadow Minister for Homeland Security has defended General Janus Jackson's interpretation of the post-war bungling in Iraq. He points out that Jackson has to bear responsibility himself for reduction in the size of the Army, which has left Britain less able to prosecute the war on terrorism by military means.
"What he says is right. The lack of post conflict planning is stunning. However, the reason that we haven't been able to prosecute either the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns as effectively as we might is that we haven't concentrated our forces. We have a war on two fronts while cutting combat units as a peace dividend for pulling out of Northern Ireland. You can't get away from it: this happened on his watch."
"Before he resigned, General Jackson was instrumental in recommending a new structure for the Army, which led to reductions in the numbers of frontline troops."
Not forgetting a massive shortage of helicopters, WIKI Land Rovers, the appalling Bowman comms, shortages of almost everything,night goggles, sand goggles etc., etc., Troops carried in 42 year old VC 10's, massive logistical problems in theatre - food shortages, ammunition problems, slow medical evacuation, etc., etc.,
More here and here
Letter Daily Telegraph Dec 8th 2006
Sir - I am a Major in the Army who has served in Bosnia and more recently as a military assistant to the General Officer Commanding in Basra. General Sir Mike Jackson's comments in the Dimbleby lecture and his interview on Today left me seething (report, December 7).
If Sir Mike felt so strongly about the topics of over-stretch, equipment, accommodation and pay, why did he not do something about it when he was in a position to do so? If he thought that Afghanistan was going to be bloodier than it has turned out to be, why did he not restructure the fighting force at the time?
Why did he not just say "No" when faced with more deployments and the subsequent overstretch? His comments are an insult to those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, a conflict he could have affected, but did not have the moral courage to do so.
A poor performance for the top general. If he was in the commercial world, he would not have been entertained for so long. I, like many of my fellow officers and soldiers, have decided to vote with my feet and have sadly resigned my commission after 10 years' service as I cannot see a turning point for the Army. Name and address supplied