[A-List] Iraq: UK frustration at US tactics

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Violence blamed on US decision to disband Iraq army

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday April 7, 2004
The Guardian

The seeds of the growing violence in Iraq were sown when the US decided to
disband the Iraqi army in direct opposition to British policy, according to
senior military and intelligence sources.

Just before the war a year ago, Britain's top military officer at the time,
Admiral Sir Michael [now Lord] Boyce, issued a directive to his commanders
in the field to negotiate with senior Iraqi officers, the Guardian has
learned. The idea was for senior officers in the Iraqi army and Republican
Guard to help maintain law and order under the supervision of senior British
officers.

"The last thing we wanted was to take thousands of prisoners of war," said a
source.

British sources described the move to disband the Iraqi army as a huge
error.

The decision was taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary,
under pressure from rightwing "neo-cons" in the Bush administration, they
say.
It is clear that British policy-makers are still seething at the American
decision.

The British plan was based on the assumption, encouraged by intelligence
reports, that many Iraqi commanders would switch sides immediately British
and American troops entered the country.

Though the Iraqi army crumbled and fled before the invading troops, it was
not too late, British sources insist, for the Iraqi units to regroup and
help maintain order. However, any chance of success Lord Boyce's directive
might have had was shattered by Washington's decision shortly after the war
to disband the Iraqi army and to refuse to employ any member of the
Ba'athist party.

The military historian John Keegan, whose book, The Iraq War, is published
next week, says: "In retrospect the disbandment of the army was a serious
mistake."