Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
“we had forgotten institutionally how to deal with this” after the long period of ceasefire
in Northern Ireland.
409.  Lt Gen Riley added that “the armour on the Warrior and Challenger main battle
tanks was upgraded very rapidly”. The Snatch vehicles were also upgraded and
“a new series of vehicles which were more effective” were introduced. But “the sort
of vehicles that we employ now in Afghanistan were just not in production” and there
was “no technological silver bullet” to address the problem. The US was still “relying
on the Humvee … largely”. The UK “had not procured anything and there was little on
the market that could have been deployed to assist me”.
410.  When the Inquiry asked whether the IED threat had been brought to his attention
during his time as Defence Secretary, Mr Hoon said:
“I think it was beginning to develop at the time that I left the department [May 2005]
yes.”208
411.  Asked whether the UK was unable to move around in a protected way once the
insurgency in Iraq developed, Sir Kevin Tebbit replied:
“I don’t think … that was not anticipated because of lack of money. I think that was
not anticipated because we hadn’t seen the threat evolving as rapidly as it did with
IEDs and roadside bombs. That developed so very quickly from 2004.”209
412.  Sir Kevin added: “I think the roadside bomb, the IED threat evolved very, very
rapidly in a way we hadn’t anticipated, and we hadn’t really got grounds to have
expected, frankly.”
413.  Gen Dannatt told the Inquiry that the circumstances in Iraq:
“… became very difficult from the summer of 2005, particularly most dramatically
evidenced by the appearance of … explosively formed projectiles, in threes, that
were sufficiently effective that even our most protected vehicles were at risk …”210
414.  When asked by the Inquiry what he was being asked to produce to support force
readiness for the growing insurgency, Gen Dannatt said: “The critical deficiency was
force protection measures, vehicles in particular.”
415.  At their meeting on 5 October, the Chiefs of Staff noted that “the high tempo of
insurgent PIR technological and tactical innovation was forcing equally rapid evolution
of Coalition countermeasures”.211
208  Public hearing, 19 January 2010, pages 199‑200.
209  Private hearing, 6 May 2010, pages 46‑47.
210  Public hearing, 28 July 2010, pages 16‑18.
211  Minutes, 5 October 2005, Chiefs of Staff meeting.
70
Previous page | Contents | Next page