Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.4  |  Development of UK strategy and options, late July to 14 September 2002
12.  The MOD stated that it was “clear that the US plan of attack from the South” did not
“need British land forces”:
“… in the time available there is very little scope for the preparation and integration
of British land forces into the US order of battle; moreover the logistic space
available in Kuwait, with five divisions worth of equipment and logistics support
entering through only one airhead and a single port would already be confined …”
13.  Adm Boyce recommended three options:
Package 1: an “in‑place support package” using forces already in the region
and US use of UK bases.
Package 2: an “enhanced support package” comprising Package 1 and
additional air and maritime forces. That package could include forces that would
be “of particular interest to the US because of their own deficiencies, e.g. mine
clearance vessels and air‑to‑air refuellers for their carrier‑based aircraft”. While
no conventional land forces could meet the timescales for the deployment of
maritime and air forces: “Special Forces could be deployed very rapidly to match
US timescales and priorities. This is likely to be very attractive to US planners,
and their contribution to success would be significant.”
Package 3: a “discrete UK package” based on deployment of an armoured
division which the MOD envisaged would be used in northern Iraq, in addition to
the forces in Packages 1 and 2. The MOD stated that a force that was “credible”
would be required: “Even to create uncertainty in the mind of Saddam”, and the
contribution of a division “would probably require command and control at Corps
level. The UK might consider providing an armoured division either as part of a
US‑led Corps or as part of a larger coalition force possibly led by the UK using
the framework of the NATO Allied Rapid Reaction Corps [ARRC].”
14.  The MOD highlighted problems with:
the concept of a “Running Start”;
the fragility of the logistic chains; and
vulnerability to chemical or biological weapons.
15.  The MOD stated that “thinking about dealing with the aftermath of a successful
attack remains sketchy”.
16.  Finally, the MOD drew attention to the funding which would be required once a
decision in principle was made to participate in military activity.
17.  Mr Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, attached “two large caveats” to all
three options.
First, the timescales were “best planning estimates” and made “sweeping
assumptions” about basing, transit routes, and overflights. They also assumed
95
Previous page | Contents | Next page