Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
Afghanistan) would breach the Harmony Guidelines and the Defence Planning
Assumptions, and was “too big a risk”.2
11.  Sir Kevin Tebbit, MOD Permanent Under Secretary from 2001 to 2005, told the
Inquiry:
“I was apprehensive [about the deployment of UK forces to Helmand] and I made my
concerns known to my planning staff and to the Chiefs of Staff. I think their view was
that they could do it and it was manageable ... since it was [the Chiefs of Staff] who
would actually have to ensure they could do this, I did not press my objections fully.”3
12.  The impact of the decision on the availability of key equipment capabilities for Iraq is
addressed in Section 14.1.
13.  The force began to deploy to Helmand in May 2006.
14.  At the end of August, General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff,
advised Mr Des Browne, the newly appointed Defence Secretary, that “as an Army, we
are running hot”.4 With operational deployments well above the levels set out in the
1998 Strategic Defence Review and the MOD’s own Harmony Guidelines, the Army’s
demands on soldiers were greater than its ability to look after them.
15.  Gen Dannatt told the Inquiry that the military covenant had “fallen out of balance ...
as a consequence of decisions taken to stay in Iraq until we had successfully completed
our operations there, but also take on Afghanistan as well”.5
16.  The MOD’s assessment that the Helmand deployment was achievable without
causing a substantial number of personnel to breach the Harmony Guidelines reflected
overly optimistic assumptions about the intensity and duration of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
17.  The twin deployments challenged the planning assumption agreed in the 1998
Strategic Defence Review that the UK should be able to undertake two medium scale
deployments simultaneously but would not expect both to involve war-fighting or to be
maintained simultaneously for longer than six months.
18.  It would only have been possible to manage the established Iraq commitment and
the new Helmand commitment, without significantly increasing the pressure on Service
Personnel, if the former was wound down on schedule and the latter was contained. In
the event, it proved difficult to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as hoped while Helmand
developed into a more substantial combat operation than originally envisaged, pushing
up force levels.
2  Public hearing, 21 July 2010, page 80.
3 Public hearing, 3 February 2010, pages 15 and 16.
4 Letter Dannatt to Browne, 31 August 2006, [untitled].
5 Public hearing, 28 July 2010, page 98.
156
Previous page | Contents | Next page