Previous page | Contents | Next page
6.4  |  Planning and preparation for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, mid-2001 to January 2003
Iraq’s future, including much of its oil reserves, critical communications nodes, a
city (Basra) of 1.3m people and a port (Umm Qasr) about the size of Southampton.
Although the establishment of UK control over this area will require careful
presentation to rebut any allegations of selfish motives, we will be playing a vital role
in shaping a better future for Iraq and its people.”
1128.  Mr Hoon stated that he had put work in hand to address the “three big issues”
identified by Mr Blair at the meeting with the Chiefs of Staff:
The “nature of the proposition” that was being put “to the Iraqi people including
those in the governing apparatus who are not considered beyond the pale, and
the way in which that would be conveyed to them without damaging operational
security and losing the element of surprise”.
The need “Now that we have a proposed Area of Responsibility” to work on that
“with greater clarity”. The forthcoming visit of a Whitehall team to Washington
was identified as “an opportunity to mould US thinking”.
Making sure the UK had the “best possible contingency plans for worst-case
scenarios”.
1129.  On timing, Mr Hoon stated:
“CENTCOM assume that, unless Saddam changes his behaviour, a political decision
to take military action may be made in mid-February. Air and ground operations
could begin in early March, with the main effort by ground forces beginning in
mid-March (although they still aspire to bring the main effort forward).”
1130.  Mr Hoon recommended that the UK:
“… should inform the US that we agree that planning should assume the contribution
of the proposed UK land force package to carry out the role the US has requested,
subject to:
i the overall caveat that a further political decision would be required to
commit UK forces to any specific operation;
ii US assistance in facilitating the bed-down of UK forces, and provision of
logistic support;
iii further work to develop a satisfactory plan for the aftermath.”
1131.  Mr Hoon highlighted the significance of the post-conflict phase of
operations in his advice to Mr Blair, but he did not:
identify the risks associated with deploying UK forces before decisions
had been made on the scope or duration of their post-conflict role, or on
the UK’s wider post-conflict responsibilities;
303
Previous page | Contents | Next page