Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
said he “was acutely aware that … Snatch was not designed [for 21st century urban
warfare]” and “so one was stuck with a difficult set of circumstances”.
170.  Lt Gen Lamb added:
“Yet … what have you got available at short order? Well … better have a Snatch
than a Land Rover.”
171.  General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff (CGS) from February 2003 to
August 2006, told the Inquiry:
“Snatch Land Rovers were deployed to Iraq because they were available or could
be made available as we drew down from Northern Ireland, and without them it
would have been completely soft‑skinned Land Rovers. That’s where the state of the
equipment inventory was at that point.
“The Snatch Land Rover was only designed to give protection from low velocity
rounds and shrapnel and it wasn’t set out to do anything else, but it was better than
a completely unprotected vehicle.”82
The appearance of Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) and the
UK’s response
172.  A JIC Assessment on 3 September judged that the security environment would
“remain poor” and “probably worsen over the next year”.83 The JIC stated that the
“most frequent attacks” had been against Coalition Forces and “increasingly” were from
small IEDs. Those using them had “shown growing competence, determination and
sophistication”. The JIC assessed that IED attacks would become more effective.
173.  The JIC judged that Shia consent was “fragile and eroding”. The guidance
of “senior Iraqi Shia clerics” had been “to give the Coalition a year”, but the recent
attacks were “likely to have shortened this timeline substantially”. If acquiescence
turned to hostility, that “would have the most serious consequences for the security
situation, particularly in southern Iraq”. If the Coalition was “perceived to be impotent”,
the Shia would “take law and order into their own hands”. Reporting indicated that
supporters of the Muqtada al‑Sadr were “acquiring weapons” and “planning attacks
on Coalition targets”.
174.  In addition, the JIC judged that Iran and Hizballah were:
“… probably inciting violent anti‑Coalition protests and other disruptive activity.
Their incitement probably falls short of directly ordering attacks on Coalition Forces.
But after the death of Ayatollah al‑Hakim [the leader of the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq], Iran will be reconsidering its approach.”
82  Public hearing, 28 July 2010, pages 74‑75.
83  JIC Assessment, 3 September 2003, ‘Iraq: Threats to Security’.
32
Previous page | Contents | Next page