Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
“in a worst case scenario” reduce the warning of an approaching Iraqi missile to “as little
as five or six seconds”.
137.  Mr Webb told the Inquiry why the proposed attack was necessary.78 Iraqi
surface‑to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery contesting the NFZs had previously been
controlled by radars close to those weapon systems:
“What they [the Iraqi military] perfected was to move the radars back north of
33 degrees north … up around Baghdad, and then to provide information to the
surface-to-air missiles and the anti-aircraft artillery by fibre-optic links …
“What that meant was that there was a risk that the aircraft would find themselves
patrolling, and suddenly, instead of being illuminated by a radar close to them that
they could identify, something much further back would be controlling a missile
which would suddenly come their way.
“This made the operation of considerably more risk …
“That target set was very, very carefully considered for, not only the basic legality,
but there were also questions about proportionality and risk to civilian casualties …”
138.  Lord Williams was briefed on the proposed attack by MOD and FCO officials on
30 January.79
139.  Later that day, Mr David Brummell, the Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, wrote
to Mr Martin Hemmings, the MOD Legal Adviser, recording that Lord Williams was
“satisfied that a proportionate attack on the target could … be justified in the context of
allied operations in the southern No-Fly Zone”.80 Mr Brummell wrote that Lord Williams
noted the:
“… assurance provided by FCO officials at today’s briefing meeting that without
the No-Fly Zones, they would be confident that further oppression would result
on a scale comparable to that which led to the grave humanitarian crisis and the
establishment of the Zones in 1991 and 1992. In the absence of that categorical
assurance, the Attorney General would not have felt able to advise as …
above. If that assurance no longer holds firm, he declines to approve
the target.”
78  Public hearing, 24 November 2009, page 141.
79  Letter Brummell to Hemming, 30 January 2001, ‘Iraq: Target’.
80  Letter Brummell to Hemming, 30 January 2001, ‘Iraq: Target’.
216
Previous page | Contents | Next page