Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
preparations might have begun in Washington for an attack on Iraq. Even
then I gave these relatively little credence … my conception of the difficulties
and downsides of taking on such a task outweighed my understanding of the
determination of the Bush Administration to undertake such an initiative.”251
681.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Inquiry:
“It wasn’t until the Crawford meeting … that I realised that the United Kingdom was
being drawn into quite a different sort of discussion, but that discussion was not
made totally visible to me … nor did I have any instructions to behave any differently
in the United Nations as a result of what might have been going on in bilateral
discussions with the United States.
“… I wasn’t being politically naive, but I wasn’t being politically informed either, and
I had a job to do to maximise the strength of the United Nations instruments on Iraq
at the time … and that continued to mean acting under the resolutions we had.”252
682.  Sir David Manning told the Inquiry:
“Our view, the Prime Minister’s view, the British Government’s view throughout
this episode was that the aim was disarmament. It was not regime change. The
Prime Minister never made any secret of the fact that if the result of disarming
Saddam was regime change, he thought this would be a positive thing, but, for
the Americans, it was. It was, ‘We want regime change in order to disarm Saddam
Hussein.’”253
683.  Sir David told the Inquiry that at Crawford Mr Blair was saying:
“Yes, there is a route through this that is a peaceful and international one, and
it is through the UN, but, if it doesn’t work, we will be ready to undertake regime
change.”254
684.  Sir David Manning believed Mr Blair had wanted to influence US policy
towards Iraq:
“I think that when it became clear … that the United States was thinking of moving
its policy forward towards regime change, he [Mr Blair] wanted to try and influence
the United States and get it to stay in the UN, to go the UN route, which is what we
spent the rest of the year trying to do, but he was willing to signal that he accepted
that disarmament might not be achieved through the UN route.
“But I don’t think he felt … that these were moments of decision in February and
March before he went to Crawford. I think he saw that much more as an attempt
251  Statement, November 2009, page 5.
252  Public hearing, 27 November 2009, pages 24-25.
253  Public hearing, 30 November 2009, page 24
254  Public hearing, 30 November 2009, page 58.
512
Previous page | Contents | Next page