Previous page | Contents | Next page
6.1  |  Development of the military options for an invasion of Iraq
176.  Mr Webb’s view was that “the prospects for finding a stable political solution”
were “poor in the short term”; and that a coalition might be left “holding the ring for a
significant period”. Securing a mandate for a UN interim administration “could be tricky”
so there would be a “need to cater for some kind of sponsored interim administration”.
177.  Mr Webb added that “without proper access to US planning”, the options were
“speculative” but:
“Potential US scenarios could embrace:
A. A clandestine/Special Forces operation on a limited scale …
B. A local revolution, possibly supported by SF and a major air campaign
(on a Northern Alliance analogy, though the circumstances are very
different).
C. A major military operation to secure centres of power such as Baghdad …”
178.  Mr Webb advised that the US had “sufficient forces to undertake a military
operation … without anyone else’s help”; but:
“To achieve a successful regime change, the UK would need to be actively involved
(one might also argue that the Prime Minister has effectively committed us).”
179.  If the US mounted a major military operation, a UK contribution of only Special
Forces, cruise missiles and/or air support “would be seen as only token … confer no
significant influence on US planning (and would be adversely contrasted with Britain’s
contribution during the [1990/91] Gulf War).”
180.  Setting out the MOD’s thinking on military issues, Mr Webb wrote:
“The fundamental building block for [a UK contribution to] a major US ground
force operation is a division. Only on that scale (requiring 3 brigades as our
planning base) would UK have significant influence over how the operation
was developed and conducted: an independent brigade does not fit into the US
structure and would in any case need substantial divisional scale enablers in
order to be safe for high intensity operations … Such a deployment would be at
the extreme end of the UK’s capacity after the SDR: it was the scenario against
which the ‘large’ option was scaled.”
The UK “should seek only to make a respectable large contribution that we can
sustain properly”.92
92 In a handwritten amendment to the draft letter Lt Gen Pigott suggested amending the sentence “Without
access to US planning, which is only now beginning …” to “Without formal access to US planning …” He
also recommended inserting “a 3 brigade division” in the description of the potential UK force contribution
of a division.
203
Previous page | Contents | Next page