Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
245.  Sir Kevin Tebbit wrote on his own copy of the document “Rubbish!”125
246.  Asked about his meeting with Mr Armitage and the fact that Mr Armitage had been
told that Mr Blair had discussed with President Bush at Crawford the question of a
British armoured division taking part in the invasion, Sir David Manning told the Inquiry:
“Yes I didn’t know that.”126
247.  Asked, in the context of an offer of a division, whether the military planners were
getting ahead of the policy, Sir David Manning told the Inquiry that he was “surprised
they had said that”. It “didn’t seem logical”; Mr Blair had refused in July to indicate what
the military contribution might be.127
248.  Lord Boyce told the Inquiry: “Let me absolutely assure you that no‑one was
authorised to make such an offer. In fact, quite the contrary.”128 He added: “we were
unable to find out who this person was. So I don’t believe there was such a person.”
249.  Two key strands of MOD thinking had clearly emerged by the end of
May 2002.
250.  First, work on options in the MOD focused on identifying the maximum
contribution the UK could make to any US‑led operation in Iraq, even though the
UK was still unsure about the objectives and validity of the plan, the legal basis
for action or the precise role the UK would play.
251.  Second, the desire to secure “strategic influence” across all environments
of a military campaign.
252.  The record of Mr Blair’s meeting with the Chiefs of Staff on 21 May, when a range
of wider defence issues was discussed, noted on Iraq: “The two main questions were:
Do the US have a sensible concept? If so how could the UK contribute?”129
253.  A paper produced by the SPG on 24 May, ‘Contingency Thinking: Force
Generation and Deployment for the Gulf’, was sent to the Chiefs of Staff and a limited
number of named MOD addressees.130
254.  The aim of the paper was to provide sufficient information:
“… to judge what the UK’s maximum level of commitment could be in the event of a
contingent operation against Iraq, together with appropriate costs and timings, and
to provide data on other smaller coherent force packages as a comparator.”
125 Manuscript comment Tebbit and Hoon on Minute Shirreff to APS/Secretary of State [MOD], 31 May 2002,
‘David Manning’s visit to Washington 17 May – Iraq’.
126 Private hearing, 24 June 2010, page 38.
127 Private hearing, 24 June 2010, page 40.
128 Public hearing, 27 January 2011, pages 19‑20.
129 Note Rycroft, 21 May 2002, ‘Prime Minister’s Meeting with Chiefs of Staff’.
130 Paper [SPG], 24 May 2002, ‘Contingency Thinking: Force Generation and Deployment for the Gulf’.
212
Previous page | Contents | Next page