6.2 |
Military planning for the invasion, January to March
2003
789.
Mr Bowen told
the Inquiry that the MOD had “very clear rules” about
undertaking
operations
and tasks within a legal framework.271
He
stated:
“On every
occasion there will be a legal opinion. On many occasions when
we
are
operating in coalition with others, we find ourselves having to say
to coalition
partners,
because we are closely engaged with them, that is not an
acceptable
target or
this has to be done in a different way. That is a dialogue that
goes on
absolutely
constantly and nobody in the Ministry of Defence has any
difficulty
about
conveying that view, that legal view. And if it means that an
operation or an
undertaking
has to be aborted, then that’s what happens. There is no question
of
… saying
‘Oh well, there is a greater good to be served by working with a
coalition’.
The answer
is you don’t do it because it is illegal, and that’s not something
that there
is any
chance taken on.”
790.
Speaking about
its distinction to the US system, ACM Sir Brian Burridge set out
the
UK approach
to targeting to the Inquiry:
“We are
absolutely doctrinally rigid. We use a template called strategy to
task to
target. So
that we can show an audit trail, and are required to show an audit
trail,
from any
target back to the strategy, thereby passing through all the
aspects of
the law of
armed conflict such as discrimination, military necessity, et
cetera.
We are
required to do that for our Law Officers in this country and we go
through
that
process with every target.”272
791.
ACM Burridge
said that US colleagues were “new to that as a discipline”
but
recognised
its value because “it made the dialogue with the international
community
a little
easier”.
“ … in
being the conscience, as it were, quite often there will be nuances
even
amongst the
same operational team on the front bench at CENTCOM. So
someone
who is able
to say actually, to me, it looks a bit like this – and I do
remember on a
couple of
occasions saying ‘General, that may look okay in Washington, but
let me
just tell
you how it might look in London, or more so, Berlin or Paris or
wherever.’
It is
not to say they needed reining in, it is just to get these nuances
right they
needed the
input from someone perhaps whose perspective was a little
different.”
793.
Lt Gen Sir
Robert Fry told the Inquiry that Sir Brian Burridge had been able
to
influence
the US “in terms of tactical engagement, targeting, the nitty
gritty of operational
combat on a
regular basis”.273
271
Public
hearing, 7 December 2009, pages 56-57.
272
Public
hearing, 8 December 2009, pages 13-14.
273
Public
hearing, 16 December 2009, page 33.
513