Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
“Other Iraqi responses might include seizing hostages as ‘human shields’; using
non‑lethal BW in a deniable manner; suicide attacks; or a ‘scorched earth’ policy
with the aim of creating a humanitarian or environmental catastrophe. At some
point, motivated by revenge, Saddam would seek to inflict the maximum damage
on his enemies, whether Iraqi or outsiders.”442
1121.  The JIC stated that the paper was “not intended to be a comprehensive review of
all Iraq’s options”.
1122.  The JIC assessed that Saddam Hussein knew that “an Iraqi military victory over
a US‑led Coalition was implausible”. If attacked, he would “initially seek international
pressure to halt Coalition action”. If this failed, he would seek to “drag out the fighting”
and “would be increasingly likely to use chemical or biological weapons … to undermine
the Coalition’s will”.
1123.  The assessment of Iraq’s ballistic missiles and chemical and biological weapons
is addressed in Section 4.3.
1124.  The JIC assessed Iraq’s options during Coalition air strikes and during a ground
campaign.
1125.  On the former, the Assessment stated that:
Iraq had “contingency plans to weather Coalition air strikes while maintaining
government control”, but its air defence system would be overloaded by a
Coalition attack.
Iraqi airforce and naval capabilities were “very limited”.
Iraq might attack Kurdish areas before a ground attack started for a number of
reasons, including to “divert Coalition air effort” and to “engage in ground fighting
earlier than it had planned”. Iraq’s ground options “would be severely limited”
once the Coalition had established control of the air.
1126.  A ground attack might fracture Saddam Hussein’s regime, but the JIC continued
to judge that “only massive military force would be guaranteed to topple Saddam”. If the
Coalition pursued a phased campaign (the “rolling attack”), the JIC stated that Saddam
Hussein would have a number of options. He would “probably seek an opportunity to
inflict casualties” including on internal “enemies” and he would “take advantage of every
opportunity to cause the Coalition political problems”. The JIC judged that the smaller
the initial Coalition force, the more likely Iraqi forces were to resist.
1127.  The JIC anticipated that the Iraqi army could establish positions within urban
areas, but “most R[egular] A[rmy] defences are likely to be constructed further forward,
nearer Iraq’s borders, or along key roads and at junctions”. Physical barriers, “water
barriers (created by flooding or by the destruction of bridges), minefields, or possibly
442 JIC Assessment, 6 December 2002, ‘Iraq: Military Options’.
344
Previous page | Contents | Next page