The Report of the Iraq Inquiry

1111. In response to an intervention from Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru) as to why he

was “so keen on going to war” if those preparations were so ill-advanced, Mr Duncan

Smith stated:

“The hon. Gentleman betrays a certain ignorance. The reality is that we need to deal

with Saddam Hussein regardless of those arrangements.”

1112. Later in the debate, Mr Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party) asked: “Will the

nation-building work? The record of the United States on nation-building has not been

impressive.”475

1113. Mr Tony Worthington (Labour) raised concerns about the scale of the challenge

in Iraq:

“What bothers my constituents – it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister fails

to persuade them of the rightness of his approach – is that little or no attention is

being paid to the consequences of the action that we are about to take.

…

“We are going to invade a country of Balkanesque complexity where occupying

forces will be unable easily to withdraw. We are rapidly in danger of becoming

piggy in the middle for every discontented ethnic or religious group in the area.

There seems little doubt of speedy, initial victory, but it is worth remembering that

the six‑day war in the Middle East is still going strong after 35 years. This war has

similar potential.

…

“We have to consider the scale of the humanitarian problem. Iraq is a huge country,

the size of France. We have to think about feeding 26 million people instantly. That

has to be done by the UN, not by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian

Assistance … I hope that the Minister will be absolutely clear in his winding-up

speech whether the UN or American generals will be in control …”476

1114. Mr John Baron (Conservative) stated that insufficient thought had been given

to the consequences of military action:

“Who and what will replace Saddam Hussein? What plans exist for humanitarian

relief? We know little about that. What effect will the action have on the stability