Military chief infuriated by criticisms of war plan

The sniping by retired generals against the Pentagon architects of the American war plan against Iraq continued yesterday despite…

The sniping by retired generals against the Pentagon architects of the American war plan against Iraq continued yesterday despite angry accusations by the US chief of the general staffs, Gen Richard Myers, that many such criticisms were "bogus" and "unhelpful".Conor O'Clery, North America Editor, reports from New York.

Gen Barry McCaffrey, now retired, who commanded combat forces in the 1991 Gulf War and who is one of a number of military analysts emloyed by US television news channels, retorted that the military was blaming others for its own problems.

For some days the US media has carried criticisms from serving and retired officers that the plan was too reliant on high technology, reflecting an over-emphasis in new Pentagon thinking on manoeuvrability and long-range strikes against troops on the ground.

President George Bush has reportedly been infuriated by reporters and retired generals who publicly questioned the tactics of the war, which he watches constantly on television.

READ MORE

Mr Bush let senior Pentagon officials know that he was "peeved" when Lt-Gen William Wallace, of V Corps, the army's senior ground commander in Iraq, told reporters last week that tougher Iraqi resistance than had been "war-gamed" and other problems had made a longer war more likely, according to USA Today.

At a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Gen Myers said angrily, his fist clenched: "My view of those reports is that they're bogus. I don't know how they get started or perpetuated . . . it is not helpful when we have troops in combat. They are false, wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth."

"Serious disagreement" over military strategy between the uniformed military and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon has been reported by serving officers over the past several months to the retired military community, according to retired general Joseph Hoare, commander-in-chief, US Central Command, 1991 to 1994.

"The fact is that more ground troops are needed," Gen Hoare wrote in yesterday's New York Times. "And more ground troops are on the way. The relevant questions are these: will the second infusion be sufficient, and why weren't these troops there when the war started?"

The US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, said that the invasion plan was put together by Gen Tommy Franks, who is in overall command of US forces in the Gulf region, and that it had the unanimous approval of the joint chiefs of staff.

What was not clear was who the key players were, who gave ground and who had their way, said Gen Hoare, who added that those in uniform who had called for three extra divisions in Iraq had been ridiculed for "old thinking".

Gen McCaffrey said of Mr Rumsfeld: "I'm a professor of national security studies and I know a lot more about fighting than he does. The problem isn't that the V Corps serving officers are commenting on television. The problem is that they chose to attack 250 miles into Iraq with one armoured division and no rear area security and no second front."

Meanwhile, an internecine battle is heating up between the US Defence and State Departments over who controls any interim government in Baghdad and over control of humanitarian aid to post-war Iraq.

State Department officials have claimed that some ideological Pentagon figures are planning to put long-time advocates of regime-change into major Iraqi ministries. Several nominees for these posts put forward by the State Department were turned down by the Pentagon.

However, the Republican-controlled appropriations committees of both Houses of Congress voted on Tuesday to take control of reconstruction of Iraq out of the hands of the Pentagon and give responsibility for managing the $2.5 billion budget for aid and reconstruction to the State Department.

Aid organisations in the US are also concerned about plans by the Pentagon to administer aid in Iraq. InterAction, an umbrella group for more than 160 US-based relief agencies, including CARE, Save the Children and Refugees International, is opposing military plans to issue ID to aid workers.

"The Department of Defence's efforts to marginalise the State Department and force non-governmental organisations to operate under Department of Defence jurisdiction complicates our ability to help the Iraqi people and multiplies the dangers faced by relief workers in the field," said Ms Mary McClymont, president of InterAction.