Britain criticises Rumsfeld

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The explicit criticism of Rumsfeld by name must have been authorised at the
highest level in the UK government. That does not necessarily imply that
Britain wants a rift to open up with the USA , but it considers the issue
is sufficiently important to enter the public realm.


>>>

US criticised for 'belligerent' language

Richard Norton-Taylor and Luke Harding in Mazar-i-Sharif Saturday November
24, 2001 The Guardian

Senior British officials yesterday criticised "belligerent" language coming
out of Washington about the fate of captured Arabs, Pakistani, and Taliban
fighters, and urged restraint by Northern Alliance forces besieging Kunduz.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said last week that America was
"not inclined to negotiate surrenders" and that he hoped al-Qaida forces
would "either be killed or taken prisoner".

He said al-Qaida fighters "getting out of the country and going off to make
their mischief somewhere else is not a happy prospect". Mr Rumsfeld was
reacting to attempts by some Northern Alliance leaders to negotiate a
peaceful end to the siege of Kunduz, the last Taliban stronghold in the
north. He said there was a limited number of US troops on the ground who
could accept the surrender of pro-Taliban fighters.

British officials yesterday said his remarks sent the wrong message to the
Northern Alliance. "Belligerence is not helpful," said a senior British
defence source.

Full article:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,605240,00.html

Not only would a massacre damage what credibility the war has in the eyes
of the international "Coalition against Terror" but it would make it more
difficult to persuade other Taliban forces to surrender.

Is the US really thinking of putting Al Quaida members on trial? Or if it
is too difficult and they would be an embarrassment are they really hoping
they will be killed? That is a recipe for more decades of terrorist attacks
on the USA.



Chris Burford

London