Why did retired British General Mike Jackson send his troops to die if the plan was so bad?

I've heard about enough out of this sniveling little worm who now conveniently finds the backbone to stand up and criticize Rumsfeld and the Pentagon but somehow when he was actually in a position of power, failed to take a stance and say no. Listening to this sorry excuse for a leader makes me want to be ill because he just can't have it both ways. Jackson was comfortable enough with the plan to send UK troops into battle and join the campaign himself so why the criticism today when the public is overwhelming against the Iraq fiasco? What ever happened to showing leadership when it matters and when something can actually be done about it?

Criticizing this mess is one thing and none of us here have been short on criticism of the war but this is nothing more than a self serving attempt to cover his own failure as the top military leader in the UK, who sent his own troops into Iraq to die. Maybe the military in the UK and the US will figure out what true leadership is all about but this is quite the contrary. Either Jackson knew the plans were bad or he didn't. If he knew it was so bad and still sent troops to Iraq, then shame on him and the death of UK troops sits squarely on his shoulders. If he bought into the plans and took his troops into battle, quit crying and quit blaming everyone else. Sandhurst is going to have to do better if this is supposed to be one of the most respected officers in the British military because he's as much of an ass as the Pentagon leadership that he's criticizing. How about a bit of leadership when it counts instead of this after-the-fact criticism?