Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
seek “general UK responsibility for the administration of any geographic area of Iraq in
the medium term”.110
167.  Mr Dominick Chilcott, the Head of the IPU from February 2003 to June 2004, told
the Inquiry that there was:
“… a great deal of hesitancy within Whitehall about the concept of a British sector
mainly because of the resources that would be involved in making a success of it
… the Treasury and DFID both expressing, for slightly different reasons, hesitancy
about the assumption that there would be a British sector.”111
168.  Mr Brown received a number of papers from Treasury officials before the meeting.
169.  A paper produced by Mr Dodds highlighted the financial implications of the
assumption in “US/UK military planning” that UK forces would take responsibility for
an area of Iraq after the conflict.112
170.  Mr Dodds advised that the Chiefs of Staff had estimated that the UK could sustain
a brigade and headquarters (around 10,000 troops) in Iraq indefinitely, and that this force
would be sufficient to fulfil the UK responsibilities for Basra Province.
171.  Mr Dodds advised that the cost of such an ongoing operation was likely to be
about £1bn a year. It was a reasonable assumption that the UK’s commitment would last
“at least two years and possibly significantly longer”. He continued:
“We have pressed MOD on how these costs might be reduced. The options are:
a. to tell the US that we feel we have played our part after Phase IVA [immediate
post‑conflict stabilisation] and that other coalition partners must be found to
take on our role …;
b. to give up the leadership role and to contribute a small component to the
leadership of others;
c. to lead a sector … with a range of forces drawn from other countries.
To keep cost to a minimum, we should scale down our commitments as rapidly as
possible.”
172.  Mr Dodds summarised his arguments:
On public finance grounds there is a strong case for stepping back from military
leadership in the aftermath and allowing other countries to take on this role.
If Ministers want Britain to continue to be in a leadership position there will be
significant costs …
110 Paper IPU, 5 March 2003, ‘Planning for the UK’s Role in Iraq after Saddam’.
111 Public hearing, 8 December 2009, page 28.
112 Paper Treasury, 4 March 2003, ‘Iraq – the Aftermath – Military Options’.
470
Previous page | Contents | Next page