Tiger Al 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02 cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b.) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option. The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were: (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions. The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real. The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush. Conclusions: (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options. (b.) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation. © CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week. (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states. (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update. (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.) MATTHEW RYCROFT LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 More would indicate that there had been ANY evidence to begin with. Does CBS , Dan Rather and forged documents ring a bell ? Call me a skeptic. Just more of the same. Clinton had a 'plan' to take Saddam out as well. Nothing new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 More would indicate that there had been ANY evidence to begin with. Does CBS , Dan Rather and forged documents ring a bell ? Call me a skeptic. Just more of the same. Clinton had a 'plan' to take Saddam out as well. Nothing new here. 159496[/snapback] Skeptic isn't what came to mind. Does Greg Thielmann, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohamed El Baradei, David Albright, Vince Cannistraro, Richard Clarke, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and the UN Security Council ring a bell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Richard Clarke, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and the UN Security Council ring a bell Yes. and the bell says that Saddam was a tyrant that had used WMDs and that the UN had issued "strongly worded" documents he absolutely ignored seventeen times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 QUOTE(AURaptor @ May 11 2005, 10:37 PM) More would indicate that there had been ANY evidence to begin with. Does CBS , Dan Rather and forged documents ring a bell ? Call me a skeptic. rolleyes.gif Just more of the same. Clinton had a 'plan' to take Saddam out as well. Nothing new here. * Skeptic isn't what came to mind. Does Greg Thielmann, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohamed El Baradei, David Albright, Vince Cannistraro, Richard Clarke, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and the UN Security Council ring a bell? Does all those U.N. resolutions and a 15-0 Security Council vote sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 Richard Clarke, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and the UN Security Council ring a bell Yes. and the bell says that Saddam was a tyrant that had used WMDs and that the UN had issued "strongly worded" documents he absolutely ignored seventeen times. 159503[/snapback] No, we weren't led to war because he was a bad guy or because he'd used WMD in the past. We were led to war, we were told, because he was a "grave and gathering", "imminent" threat who was in possession of WMD and had the capability to use them to attack his neighbors and us. Don't take your eye off the ball, David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 QUOTE(AURaptor @ May 11 2005, 10:37 PM) More would indicate that there had been ANY evidence to begin with. Does CBS , Dan Rather and forged documents ring a bell ? Call me a skeptic. rolleyes.gif Just more of the same. Clinton had a 'plan' to take Saddam out as well. Nothing new here. * Skeptic isn't what came to mind. Does Greg Thielmann, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohamed El Baradei, David Albright, Vince Cannistraro, Richard Clarke, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and the UN Security Council ring a bell? Does all those U.N. resolutions and a 15-0 Security Council vote sound familiar? 159505[/snapback] Which 15-0 Security Council vote was that? The one Bush attempted to get but never happened because we withdrew the resolution because we knew it wouldn't pass? Or, do you think 1441 was a UN authorization for war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Since when is a UN vote something to pay attention to? We don't need a permission slip to do what we want to do, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 Since when is a UN vote something to pay attention to? We don't need a permission slip to do what we want to do, remember? 159566[/snapback] If it's an organization we choose to belong to and whose policies we both help to enact and enforce, why shouldn't the same rules apply to us that we apply to the rest of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 If it's an organization we choose to belong to and whose policies we both help to enact and enforce, why shouldn't the same rules apply to us that we apply to the rest of the world? 159578[/snapback] 'Cause we're the big kid on the block and they're a bunch of ineffectual meddlers. We need a United Nations that is responsive to the interests of ALL Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 If it's an organization we choose to belong to and whose policies we both help to enact and enforce, why shouldn't the same rules apply to us that we apply to the rest of the world? 159578[/snapback] 'Cause we're the big kid on the block and they're a bunch of ineffectual meddlers. We need a United Nations that is responsive to the interests of ALL Americans. 159583[/snapback] Shouldn't the UN be responsive to all NATIONS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Which 15-0 Security Council vote was that? The one Bush attempted to get but never happened because we withdrew the resolution because we knew it wouldn't pass? Or, do you think 1441 was a UN authorization for war? You can keep ignoring history all you want. Source: New York TimesPublished: November 08, 2002 UNITED NATIONS -- The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution today that gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with disarmament resolutions and establish a rigorous regiment of inspections, giving United Nations inspectors immediate access to any site they want in Iraq. President Bush called the resolution a "final test" of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, saying the Iraqi president's response must be "prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 Which 15-0 Security Council vote was that? The one Bush attempted to get but never happened because we withdrew the resolution because we knew it wouldn't pass? Or, do you think 1441 was a UN authorization for war? You can keep ignoring history all you want.  Source: New York TimesPublished: November 08, 2002 UNITED NATIONS -- The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution today that gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with disarmament resolutions and establish a rigorous regiment of inspections, giving United Nations inspectors immediate access to any site they want in Iraq. President Bush called the resolution a "final test" of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, saying the Iraqi president's response must be "prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences." 159591[/snapback] Yes, resolution 1441. In what way did Iraq not comply with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Yes, resolution 1441. In what way did Iraq not comply with this? Ask Baghdad Bob. Seems you 2 have lots in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Shouldn't the UN be responsive to all NATIONS? 159586[/snapback] Sorry, but Bush won and Kofi Annan should get over it and stop being so obstructionist. Last time I checked, only States, not silly other nations, had electoral votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,050 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Key findings of the Duelfer Report.Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...hap1.html#sect1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 oh, but that's a government link, of course they're going to make Bush look good. You might as well replace the letter C...I...A with F...O...X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 If it's an organization we choose to belong to and whose policies we both help to enact and enforce, why shouldn't the same rules apply to us that we apply to the rest of the world? 159578[/snapback] 'Cause we're the big kid on the block and they're a bunch of ineffectual meddlers. We need a United Nations that is responsive to the interests of ALL Americans. 159583[/snapback] Shouldn't the UN be responsive to all NATIONS? 159586[/snapback] They should, but they didn't really do much to help with the genocide. They don't help with I raq. They won't put pressure on N. Korea(or at least tough pressure),UN people pocketed millions, while giving billions to Saddam. A UN member said that we are a greedy country, because of our initial donation for the Tsunami, they wanted to send advisors to our 04 presidential election because they were worried about fraud,they apparently couldn't get the meassage the first 10 or so times with Saddam not following sanctions, rather than stop Iran from buliding nukes, we'll invite them to the "human rights" table haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.