Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
929.  Gen Reith told the Inquiry that he was not sure that it had been necessary to
provide significant numbers to secure influence. It was the UK’s “niche capabilities” and
the quality of the advice it provided to US commanders that gave the UK influence.367
930.  The advice to Mr Hoon and Mr Blair did not distinguish clearly between a
desire and ability to influence US military planning on the one hand and wider and
more strategic objectives on the other.
931.  There was a perception that the UK would be able to influence, and if
necessary delay, the timing of the military campaign. That was initially seen as
desirable to give more time for inspections and the strategy of coercion to work
and to build domestic and international support for action.
932.  A later timescale was also desirable if UK ground forces were to be ready to
participate in combat operations.
933.  The argument that the UK would be unable to influence the conduct of the
US military campaign without a significant and active role in combat operations is
self‑evidently true. The key question is, however, whether the influence achieved
was commensurate with the scale of the UK contribution.
934.  The degree to which the UK was able to influence the planning and conduct
of the military campaign is difficult to determine, as Section 8 states.
935.  The extent to which the offer of Package 3 rather than Package 2 was driven
by the view that it would materially affect the UK’s ability to influence the US at the
political level, or that it would have a lasting impact on the strategic relationship
between the US and UK is debatable.
936.  Mr Blair regarded the decision as a strategic choice for the UK. He told the Inquiry:
“If you are there with a bigger force alongside the Americans than otherwise, then, of
course, you will be more intimately involved, but that’s not really the reason.”368
937.  Asked whether he saw a correlation between the size of the UK contribution and its
influence with the US, Mr Jonathan Powell told the Inquiry that he did not think that was
true.369
938.  Asked by the Inquiry whether he thought offering Package 3 had been essential,
Mr Powell replied: “No”; the two reasons which had “militated in favour” of that decision
were:
367 Private hearing, 15 January 2010, page 57.
368 Public hearing, 29 January 2010, page 62.
369 Public hearing, 18 January 2010, page 91.
316
Previous page | Contents | Next page