Afternoon:
9°c
Britain’s secret plans to topple Saddam two years before war
Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor24 Nov 2009
Britain drafted a secret “options” paper on toppling Saddam Hussein two years before the Iraq invasion, it emerged today.
Former Foreign Office official Sir William Patey revealed that the internal Whitehall document set out the option of regime change at a time when sanctions appeared to be failing to contain the dictator.
Both Sir William and Foreign Office political director Sir Peter Ricketts, who is now its permanent secretary, said the policy of overthrow was “provisional” and that the “operational” policy was one of diplomacy through the United Nations. But the existence of the document will spark speculation that Tony Blair was plotting with George Bush to invade Iraq.
British officials felt that overthrowing Saddam would be illegal despite American “drum beats” for military action. Secret meetings in Washington between British and US officials in early 2001 revealed that parts of President Bush's new administration were considering the idea of regime change.
Britain's own intelligence assessments revealed that Saddam was getting richer by sanction-busting and “accelerating” his attempts to build longer-range missiles and acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the inquiry heard.
But the UK Government's firm policy was to “keep a long way from the regime change end of the spectrum” of options for dealing with the Iraqi dictator. Sir Peter Ricketts said: “Regime change in 2001 was something that we thought there could be no legal basis for”.
Sir William, then head of the Middle East section, said Saddam was not seen as “an immediate threat” and it would have taken “a few years” before he became a serious danger to the West.
International lawyers have long argued that there was no legal basis for the war, although Mr Blair went ahead after Attorney General Lord Goldsmith reassured him that a case could be made for action.
But Sir William revealed that as early as 2001, the Foreign Office was already reassessing its policy on containing Saddam. It had drafted an internal policy paper setting out what Iraq would look like “post-Saddam”, titled “A Contract with the Iraqi People”. The paper was never published but set out what the Middle East would look like if the Iraqi leader was no longer in power.
Another secret, two-page “options paper” was circulated in 2001 which gave the first British assessment of toppling Saddam. Sir Peter admitted that a range of options were being looked at in 2001, among which was a “provisional policy” of what to do if sanctions failed and the Americans wanted a more forceful approach.
Britain tried to back the doveish US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his plans for smarter, sharper sanctions, but French and Russian opposition in the UN Security Council tipped Washington towards the hawks, he said.
Sir William said that he had warned his French and Russian counterparts that American demands for military action would increase without agreement on how to toughen sanctions.
Simon Webb, a former director of operational policy at the MoD, said that in the wake of 9/11, Britain's policy shifted not to regime change as such but towards “weapons of mass destruction”. He said that to deal with the threat the West could “end up having to push Saddam out of power”.
Sir Peter said that after 9/11, he began to hear talk in Washington of a “phase 2” in the “war on terror”. He said the attacks made the Pentagon rather than the State Department the “dominant instrument” in US foreign policy.
Reader views (44)
ok, I can see the future. ´the outcome of this tawdry lipstick "enquiry" will be :
1. lessons will be learned.
2. Blame will fall on no-one specific.
3. departmental tickings off but on no-one specific.
4. a year of lunches and limousines.
5. zero outcome for the british tax payer.
- Roderick Mackintosh, berlin germany, 25/11/2009 08:41
Report abuse
lessons to be learned! tell that to the thousands of Iraqi people. men, women, and children who have died because of those sacred politicians who won't be found guilty or prosecuted.
- Jonvic, SC USA, 25/11/2009 02:21
Report abuse
If it had all been about Saddam that would have cost just one bullet.
Frankly I think some of the Americans in government were waiting for somebody to say to them "no! this is insane" Unfortunely for Iraq, Blair is one of that breed of British that rolls on its back to have its tummy tickled by anything American. Empty vessels make most noise and Blair was totally seduced by Bush's big talk which as we have seen was no plan whatsoever but just to show daddy Bush what a big boy he was.
- Charlie, Reading, 24/11/2009 22:00
Report abuse
If Tony Blair had just stood by and watched the atrocities that the Taliban inflict on their own people that would have been inhumane. But the people in charge in these places are still hell bent on controlling people by any means possible, particularly women. The sad thing is the innocent brave British and American soldiers who have lost their brave lives to make the world a better place.
- Mary, England, 24/11/2009 18:35
Report abuse
So TB is a war criminal and should be treated as such. Does no-one think back to the mass demonstrations AGAINST going to war in Iraq? The whole thing is disgusting.
- Volpone, London, London, 24/11/2009 17:05
Report abuse
Den, london
Why would the tories put blair on trial over the Iraq war? Almost to a man they voted for the war, In fact Michael Howard is on record as saying he would havr gone to war with or without the Backing of the UN. Try and get your fact right before sounding off.
- James Hennessy, Manchester England, 24/11/2009 16:55
Report abuse
To quote Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" Let´s wait for the results of the inquiry before pronouncing judgement.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands, 24/11/2009 16:39
Report abuse
It was the western powers that sold Sadaam his chemical weapons: specifically, Donald Rumsfeld in 1980. When the sheeple wake up and realise what a hoax the entire system is under which we live, then there can be no further war, because we will all finally stop voting and paying taxes to the international crime syndicate known as the political system. Blair and Saddam are both Freemasons, Bilderbergers and Trilateralists, along with Bush, Rumsfeld and the New Messiah ("Obama"). We are being played like a violin, people!
- Neil, London, London UK, 24/11/2009 15:05
Report abuse
I agree with most that this is a waste of our money and time. To Mathew from London.... if you feel that nothing else but an illegal attack on Iraq was the only option then you are clearly messed up. Have you ever heard of talking, finding substantial evidence or having majority of support by all countries? I guess then you joined the army and joined in the attack? I guess then you would put your own children on the line for the cause? I don’t think so...... I fed up with taking with people who agree with attacking people (not war). Most are selfish, arrogant, Hypercritical, scared, clueless individuals and some believe everything there politicians tell them, even though they know some of them are scum. Mathew I wish you had seen the poor innocent children, babies, women and men we have killed…….. where’s there justice
- Alex, Herts, 24/11/2009 15:00
Report abuse
Surely the whole thing is about whether the invasion of Iraq agreed between Blair and Bush or the UK and the USA was legal or not? Law exists which is yes or no. The French at that time along with many other countries confirmed it was illegal. The U.N as usual had no comment.
So lets stop going around in forever ending circles and agree once and for all, was it legal or not and act upon the result.
- Tony Wingfield, Nice France, 24/11/2009 14:33
Report abuse
Nobody realitically expects this process to establish "Guilt". All I ask is the following:
1) It clearly identifies IF Parliament and/or the electorate were lied to in the biuld up to taking us into war and, if so, WHO lied.
2) It does not shy away from fully apportioning "Blame" (where appropriate)for any failure to prepare or plan adequately for this conflict. It must name names without political influence or favour
3)It does NOT take as long as the Bloody Sunday enquiry to reach & publish its report!!!.
In order to do this fully, and without it being seen as a whitewash, I find it totally inconceivable that Gordon Brown would NOT be asked to give evidence. He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time and held the purse strings. It was HIS decisions that impacted the effectiveness of the preparation and subsequent prosecution of this war. He MUST give evidence. If not, then it's a political whitewash before it starts.
- Malcolm, London, 24/11/2009 14:14
Report abuse
Matthew, London, UK
Unless I am very much mistaken, the premise for going to war was the presence of WMD in Iraq. When that premise was proven to be false, the justification was reinvented that the UK and US were somehow liberating Iraq from a dictator that both countries were willing allies of only 20 years previously.
The inquiry therefore should not about whether or not Iraq was liberated. It should however be focussed on why Tony Blair sought to mislead Parliament with a false pretext for invading a sovereign power, and thus whether the invasion was illegal.
- John, Twickenham, 24/11/2009 13:48
Report abuse
Don't worry report will not be out till the Tories are in power then they can change the rules and arrest, Try and find Blair Guilty. Roll on next year.
- Den, London, 24/11/2009 13:46
Report abuse
Is the purposes of 5 public enquiries to leak more and more info into the public domain until 30 years down the line we will know that TB misled us but too much time has elapsed for sucessful prosecutions?
- Mattk, Ware, 24/11/2009 13:24
Report abuse
Politicians are just the scum of the earth lining their own pockets -they are all the same irrespective of their party or country
- Ed, London, 24/11/2009 13:24
Report abuse
Lets donate the money that will spent on this enquiry and on lawyers fees to the good people of Cumbria. They certainly are in need of it right now. We all know that Tony Blair misled the country right from the start and that Dr Kelly was bumped off. There is nothing new that this enquiry will produce that is not already in the public domain so why waste the time, effort and money in producing another classic Whitehall whitewash.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 24/11/2009 13:03
Report abuse
What a complete waste of public money,an inquiry that we are informed is not a trial,and no person will be prosecuted,WE KNOW the result,and those responsible,Bush, and Blair, there Iv said it,now disband the inquiy,and send the millions it would have cost, direct to Cockermouth.
- Tessa Barnes, London, 24/11/2009 13:02
Report abuse
Public money down the drain. Justice must be SEEN to be done - meaning 'we will give the people something to see, a little pat on the head, a little stern criticism, then it's business as usual'.
Politics - makes me puke!
- Chris Williams, Cardiff, 24/11/2009 13:02
Report abuse
So, what is the point of the enquiry! It will cost millions and no doubt 'lessons will be learnt', but all those who lied to us and sent people to die will walk away. I hope someone - perhaps the parents of soldiers who died or were maimed in that illegal war - starts a private prosecution. I will gladly contribute to any fund to help them with legal expenses.
- Beatriz, London, 24/11/2009 13:01
Report abuse
That's it then. A total waste of time and money.
Too bad I wasn't chosen in place of Chilcot, everybody would have been under oath, no exceptions, and clearly TRUTH is of no importance, when it should be central and paramount.
Why can't every criminal use the excuse of 'let's move on' and I've learned my lesson(s), so leave me alone, besides, my crime(s) was committed over 6 years ago etc etc.
- Ralph, London, 24/11/2009 12:48
Report abuse
Pwrhaps one of those remaining soldiers should think long and hard about why they kill, a revision towards the ememy within would not go amiss eh Mr.Blur tutdemocracy !
- N.Martin, UK, 24/11/2009 12:45
Report abuse
More whitewash than there was on my Grandma's outside lavvy after the war!!
- Lancashire Lad, Lancashire, 24/11/2009 12:39
Report abuse
Chilcot is absolutely right, this is not a court with the powers to put anyone on trial. The Inquiry may make recommendations that lead to prosecutions of individuals but it cannot, and should not, itself try anyone since that would be just as illegal and abusive as some believe the war itself to have been.
I would though like to pose a question to the many kneejerk anti war posters on here;
What would you have done about Saddam Hussein then? Just left him to continue on with his massacres, murders and gross abuses of his own people and his violent invasions of his neighbours?
- Matthew, London, UK, 24/11/2009 12:38
Report abuse
What purpose does this inquiry serve, other, than providing politicians the excuse that they are being 'open' We know it was a shambles going in, when we were there, and, coming out! We know that Blair is a liar, but not to what extent, we know that government ministers, and, the opposition were complicit by their negligence, again, we do not know to what extent. Blame is not going to be apportioned, the guilty, or, incompetent are not held to account! Please what is the purpose of this enquiry, other than to give the main antagonists a clean bill of health. It is a disgrace, but, we allow it, we do not deserve to be a democracy!(if indeed that is what we are!)
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London, 24/11/2009 12:34
Report abuse
The whole point of this inquiry has been missed. It was not set up to establish the truth of how we came to invade Iraq. It was set up to prevent the Tories having their own inquiry, which would have been far more damaging to Tony and his cronies, and may well have resulted in criminal prosecutions.
To that end, it has already been a huge success.
- Kate, London, 24/11/2009 12:31
Report abuse
Chilcot states that it will not be a "whitewash".
That means it will definitely be a whitewash.
- Reuben Camara, Plot 1, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR
Haha - said it in one Reuben!
It's impossible to believe a single word that any Liebour politician or civil servant says now - in fact, you should believe the exact opposite of whatever they say:-
"The Iraq Inquiry will not be a whitewash" - The inquiry will be a total whitewash from start to finish
"We will scrap ID cards because the public have spoken" - We will tell you we're scrapping them but secretly keep them and make them 'voluntary'
"We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD" - We invaded Iraq because we were George Bush's poodle and then we plagiarised a student's dissertation on Iraq to justify a full-scale military invasion costing billions of pounds and the lives of thousands of soldiers.
As for this "Chilcot Inquiry" they may aswell just get the Dulux and paintbrush out now.
- Anon Pc, London, UK, 24/11/2009 12:18
Report abuse
The Chilcot report does not have to be the end of the matter.A private prosecution could be brought against a person who patently lied about the danger of Iraq weapons of mass destruction and which caused a loss of a
British soldiers life as a result.Alex Pomeroy
- Alex Pomeroy, london, 24/11/2009 12:06
Report abuse
When it is some African, Asian or Eastern European leader they are quick to arrest and charge them and have them before the European Court in the Hague. Good old western leaders just get away with everything, it's a whitewash as usual.
- Michael Golding, London, 24/11/2009 12:02
Report abuse
Why the surprise? How much longer is it going to take the British people to realise that this is now a lawless society and anything goes! For God's sake accept the facts and get used to living in a putrid society!
- Alan, Chigwell., 24/11/2009 11:53
Report abuse
Out of the five people on the enquiry panel only two of them can be trusted with national secrets so the enquiry is doomed from the start. Who chose this panel?
- Alfie Williams, Westminster, UK, 24/11/2009 11:52
Report abuse
We do not need another useless, general "lessons to be learned" inquiry. What we need is an inquiry which will be able to decide the criminality or otherwise of the Blair government's decision to invade Iraq. That's what the people want, and that's what they should get.
- Sandeep Murthy, Oxford, 24/11/2009 11:49
Report abuse
is it pantomime season already? It's not a whitewash! "Oh yes it is!"
- Paul, London, 24/11/2009 11:49
Report abuse
This is the fourth enquiry about the invasion and regime change in Iraq. The bottom line is that witnesses do not have to give evidence and if they do it is not under oath.
It is a complete waste of public resources.
- Damalone@Hotmail.Com, london, 24/11/2009 11:48
Report abuse
Another waste of public money on another pointless inquiry!!!
1. Macpherson Inquiry
2. Scarman inquiry
3. The Hutton Inquiry
to name just a few!!!
- Mar, Walworth, 24/11/2009 11:32
Report abuse
"Fears of a “whitewash” similar to the Hutton Inquiry into other aspects of the war were heightened when government insiders said there was no “expectation” that the Prime Minister would be called to describe his role in the build-up to the conflict. Gordon Brown backed the invasion in Cabinet."
Well in one fell swoop those fears have just been realised.
It seems to me that from the very outset this "Iraq Inquiry" will be nothing but a total whitewash and a gross insult to democracy.
There should have been a totally independent review and investigation WITHOUT any Government appointments or interference - All of the families of soldiers who have died at least deserve that don't they? (well Nu-Liebour and Tony Bliar obviously don't think so)
What a complete sham - I am ashamed of this lousy,rotten,stinking banana republic Government.
- Anon Pc, London, UK, 24/11/2009 11:24
Report abuse
No legally qualified member of the panel, no witnesses required to give statements 'evidence' under oath, no commitment to anything other than to drag the matter deeper into history and further away from accurate judgements being possible.
If not a whitewash and waste of public funding, it is certainly well qualified to become a light cream coloured expensive farce that no one with a brain will believe a word of.
The sole intention is to kill time. Next excuse down the line, too many memories faded, too many critical witnesses dead etc.
Not too distant from the Kennedy Assassination inquiry, ie: a classic cover up by the establishment. The problem for them this time, the disbelief is too firmly entrenched in most people's minds, this will not be the end of the matter because common decency has been disgusted by what we have witnessed about the convenintly selective memories of the politicians involved in this matter.
- Ken.H, Harrow. UK, 24/11/2009 11:19
Report abuse
So Mr. Chilcot,
Would you mind explaining what the hell your inquiry is all about then? I suspect not only myself, but 65 million other UK citizens would be interested in your answer.
- Martin, cheltenham, 24/11/2009 11:04
Report abuse
Blair should be in prison after being found guilty of war crimes,nothing less would be acceptable to the British public.
- Auf Deutsch, Bent Kent Region1648A EUSSR., 24/11/2009 11:02
Report abuse
So what is the point, if no one is accountable.
The whole idea is establish who is accountable, we're all sick of hearing lessons to be learned. Unless heads roll this exercise is rather pointless and the lives lost meaningless. BLAIR and that wretch CAMP HELL has blood on their hands, not to forget Dr. Kelly being hounded to his grave which is also suspicious.
- Asw Ex-Pat, HK, 24/11/2009 10:55
Report abuse
is this what they call a whitewash a total waste of money, there remit should be find out who lied and prosecute they have cost lives
- Anon, leicestershire, 24/11/2009 10:50
Report abuse
What a whitewash!
- Mhmedia, Guildford, UK, 24/11/2009 10:50
Report abuse
When a civil servant begins an inquiry in this manner, one cannot help but treat the whole expensive exercise with scepticism, if it doesn't have a remit to ask questions as to the conduct of the former Primer Minster in respects to misuse of intelligence.
If Tony Blair is not to be challenged or investigated as to whether or not he lied to Parliament, what lessons can possibly be learned ?
Another New Labour, Huttonesque whitewash beckons
- John, Twickenham, 24/11/2009 10:47
Report abuse
Chilcot states that it will not be a "whitewash".
That means it will definitely be a whitewash.
- Reuben Camara, Plot 1, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR, 24/11/2009 10:37
Report abuse
The conclusion that a majority of the Public will arrive at,will be that a large amount of money,unwillingly donated by the electorate, will be used to confirm that which we already know,that the war was ill conceived at best and illegal at worst. No-one will be blamed or prosecuted and previously unwilling witnesses will be exempted from further action against them if they testify. Immunity for all!!! So, Basically carte blanche to attack anybody the U.S. tell us to and no comebacks. Everybody happy except the families of the dead?????
- Alan Reece, Hythe, Kent, 24/11/2009 10:33
Report abuse
