Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
720.  On 26 September, Lt Gen Pigott wrote to Lt Gen Reith with guidance to
“summarise the current baseline on … options and to flag up the key issues”, on which
addressees and their staff could draw on in discussion with US contacts.287
721.  Lt Gen Pigott cautioned that aftermath and “Home Base” requirements were still
to be addressed and “could impact on the final shape” of the force packages he was
describing.
722.  Lt Gen Pigott identified that there was:
“… much work to be done if there is to be any prospect of a significant UK Land
option from the North within current time windows … Until we have a much better
feel for all the factors … we should be very cautious of giving US Commanders the
impression that we can deliver something which events, most of them outside our
control, simply preclude.”
723.  Lt Gen Pigott concluded:
“Package 3 must at the moment have considerable caveats, and every effort must
be made to dampen expectations that it can be delivered.”
724.  Sir Kevin Tebbit told the Inquiry:
“It was indeed decided that we would not expose the full large‑scale option to the US
at that point because of concerns about the UN process, because … lack of clarity
… persisted, as to whether the Turks would actually provide the necessary facilities
for the northern option which was the one mainly under consideration.”288
725.  Lord Boyce initially told the Inquiry:
“I think that Package 2 would have disappeared as being a favoured option in about
September, because the large‑scale option was obviously more difficult to prepare,
so our focus was on that.”289
726.  Asked whether he was aware of the size of the UK contribution that was on the
table in September 2002, Lord Boyce subsequently told the Inquiry:
“Package 2 was on the table then. No authorisation had been given by the
Prime Minister or Defence Secretary to say that we could offer anything more than
that. In fact, we were explicitly not saying that we were prepared to make available
any land commitment, let alone a division commitment.”290
287 Minute DCDS(C) to CJO, 26 September 2002, ‘Iraq – Potential Scale of UK Force Contribution for Use
in UK/US Contingency Planning’.
288 Public hearing, 3 December 2009, page 36.
289 Public hearing, 3 December 2009, page 35.
290 Public hearing, 27 January 2011, pages 22‑23.
282
Previous page | Contents | Next page