Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
305.  Sir Kevin concluded:
“One is still left with an air of unreality, given the enormity of what is envisaged and
the absence of planning detail or policy framework to credibly make it happen. Part
of the difficulty may be in the dysfunctional nature of the Washington bureaucracy
under which nothing is brought together except and until it reaches the ultimate
level (and Rumsfeld otherwise operates autonomously with his Commanders-in-
Chief). But on the basis of the visit we still have a job on our hands to persuade the
Administration to prepare for this in a way which would meet the Prime Minister’s
conditions for participation and, indeed for overall success.”123
306.  The letter was sent to Mr Straw’s Private Office and to the Cabinet Office,
Sir Richard Dearlove, and Mr Brummell.
307.  The letter was seen by Mr Blair124 and Lord Goldsmith.125
308.  Sir Kevin Tebbit told the Inquiry that, at that stage, he and “a lot of other officials”
were concerned to ensure that the UK’s conditions “were … seriously being pursued”,
rather than (the UK) simply being invited to participate in detailed military planning albeit
as a contingency.126
309.  Sir Kevin stated that the first reason for the visit “was to be absolutely clear
whether they [the US] were determined to proceed on a military track. It was not clear
at that point.”127 The second was to understand the thinking of the different groups in
Washington.
310.  Sir Richard Dearlove reported that the US had already taken a decision on
action, the question was how and when; and that he had been told it intended to
set the threshold on weapons inspections so high Iraq would not be able to hold
up US policy.
311.  Sir Richard Dearlove discussed policy towards Iraq in a meeting with Dr Rice in
Washington on 19 July.128
312.  The report of the discussion stated that the US view was:
There was “growing evidence of the construction of CBW production and links
to terrorists [in Iraq] stoking fears of a repeat 9/11 with WMD”.
There was a strong strategic case for removing Saddam Hussein. Continued
development of WMD was not in doubt.
A “casus belli” already existed.
123  Letter Tebbit to Manning, 22 July 2002, ‘Iraq’.
124  Manuscript comment Manning on Letter Tebbit to Manning, 22 July 2002, ‘Iraq’.
125  Manuscript comment Goldsmith on Letter Tebbit to Manning, 22 July 2002, ‘Iraq’.
126  Public hearing, 3 December 2009, page 28.
127  Public hearing, 3 December 2009, page 57.
128  Report, 22 July 2002, ‘Iraq [C’s account of discussions with Dr Rice]’.
54
Previous page | Contents | Next page