Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
961.  As Sir David Manning foresaw in his advice of 16 October, however, far from
reducing the risk of significant commitments post‑conflict, contributing ground
forces created significant obligations and responsibilities for the UK post‑conflict.
962.  Mr Hoon told the Inquiry that there was a sense that it was better to be in Iraq at
the beginning of any operation, rather than go in later for a peacekeeping operation
without having prior experience and information.378 There were also concerns that would
require more troops for longer.
963.  Sir Kevin Tebbit confirmed that one of the arguments for offering land forces
for combat operations was that the MOD had not wanted “to get caught in the role of
follow‑on forces because then we could find ourselves even more bogged down and
under even greater pressure to stay for longer than we felt … sensible”.379 The UK had
been caught anyway, although Sir Kevin suggested that taking part in the invasion had
made it easier to reduce UK force levels after the conflict than it would have been if the
force had deployed only for post‑conflict tasks.
964.  The recognition of that responsibility in the planning for post‑conflict operations
is addressed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5.
Did the need to maintain the Army’s morale influence the decision?
965.  The MOD and No.10 both raised the question of whether there could be an
issue of managing morale if the Army was not involved in combat operations.
966.  The balance of the evidence suggests that none of the key decision‑takers
regarded that as a decisive factor in the decision, which would clearly have been
inappropriate.
967.  Mr Campbell wrote in his diaries that, at the meeting on 31 October, Adm
Boyce had said that some inside the Army were irritated not to be more involved.380
Mr Campbell commented that Adm Boyce was “hard to read, sometimes giving the
impression none of them wanted anything to do with this, then at others giving the
impression they all wanted to be off to the front line”.
968.  In his book, The New Machiavelli, Mr Powell wrote that Adm Boyce had told No.10
that the Armed Forces wanted to participate on the ground at “division strength with
their own command”; and that it would damage morale if they were restricted to a mere
supporting role from sea and air while the Americans and others carried out the ground
campaign.381
378 Public hearing, 19 January 2010, page 47.
379 Private hearing, 6 May 2010, page 56.
380 Campbell A & Hagerty B. The Alastair Campbell Diaries. Volume 4. The Burden of Power: Countdown
to Iraq. Hutchinson, 2012.
381 Powell J. The New Machiavelli: How to wield power in the modern world. The Bodley Head, 2010.
320
Previous page | Contents | Next page