The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
636.
Major General
Jonathan Shaw, GOC MND(SE) from January 2007 to August
2007,
told the
Inquiry:
“There is
no such thing as a safe vehicle because if you look at … what
protection
means, only
a part of that … is actually the hardening of the vehicle itself.
Most
protection
is achieved by not being located or identified or targeted in the
first place …
“… more
heavy armoured vehicles were hit than Snatch … Snatch has come in
for
a lot of
criticism, but actually it was an extremely effective weapon, and
the soldiers
really
liked using it because, although it was risky, it avoided the
damage [to roads
637.
For the PPV
programme, Sir Peter Spencer told the Inquiry that Lord
Drayson had
become “the
catalyst” for moving it forward.332
When asked
if that was unusual, Sir Peter
replied
that it was “a leadership issue for the top of the shop in
defence”.
638.
The Inquiry
asked ACM Torpy what direction he had provided about the
appropriate
levels of
risk. He responded:
“I honestly
do not believe it is CJO’s role to be giving direction to the in
theatre
commander
as to the levels of risk he should be taking with his people …
Clearly
we wanted
to minimise risk to people, but recognising that we had a job to
deliver
as well …
So we would do the utmost we could possibly do in terms of
providing
improvements
in terms of capability … tactics and procedures, I have to say I
left
very firmly
to the GOC …”333
639.
The Inquiry
asked ACM Torpy whether he was reliant on or had challenged
the
GOC’s
judgments. ACM Torpy replied:
“… that
goes back to … regular visits by senior officers…. not just me
going out
to theatre
but CinC LAND … General Jackson … very experienced army
officers.
So I would
have hoped if there was concern about what they were seeing on
the
ground that
they would have put that in a visit report or come and tapped me
on
the
shoulder and said, ‘Torpy, why hasn’t this been addressed?’ and
that never
640.
When asked
whether commanders on the ground were telling him that they
had
confidence
in Snatch, ACM Torpy told the Inquiry that they:
“… saw it
as a capability that they needed to fulfil the task … they clearly
would
have liked
a vehicle which offered better degrees of protection and extra
armour
was put on
to Snatch vehicles. They had alternatives … Warrior or, if
necessary,
a Challenger,
but that … has perception problems … So … there is a balance
to
331
Private
hearing, 21 June 2010, page 41.
332
Public
hearing, 26 July 2010, page 45.
333
Public
hearing, 18 January 2011, page 64.
334
Public
hearing, 18 January 2011, page 67.
108