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.
(c) 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
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
well, that's american pragmatism..
there are real reasons for going to war..
WMD was just an excuse,..
but its not as simple as that.
so what should we do? leave?
just think of what will happend if US does that..
that's why i am against this rant about how WRONG, EVIL us is..
it doesn't offer any solutions, or benefits.. it will only make this war longer, and more painful.
this war is against terrorism, it was a good idea to take out the source, or potential source(saddam) and engage the enemy in the open field.. but this WMD issue makes US a liar and gives a moral superiority to terrorists, and that's what they need the most of all.
pasha -
if you truly feel this so-called war is a good idea i would like to suggest that you enlist.
recruiting is way off - you are needed more now than ever.
or is it only a good idea if someone elses life is wasted?
i don't believe everything that press secretary says.
you really think that people who planned this were only concerned about nuclear weapons? if that was true we would be much more concerned about north korea.
my point is that because of american pragmatism US has underestimated the importance of having a solid ideology for war that would appeal to masses. and that was a huge mistake.
pasha -
PRAGMATIC (Pronunciation Key)prag·mat·ic Listen: [ prg-mtk ]
adj.
Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
seeing how the facts were being fixed around the policy, and not vice versa - and seeing how this little neo-con adventure has cost $300 billion and taken 1700 soldiers lives - i don't see how it can be called pragmatic.
pasha, actually if your war is exclusively against terrorism you should send some F18 and drop some missiles here in Spain.. there are quite a lot of dormant cells in contact with other Al Qaeda subfactions who reside in the UK.. so send more F16 to Great Britain and start a war there in search of more terrorists too...
terrorism does not live in Iraq, terrorism is in every corner of this planet (including the USA).. and at the same time its nowhere specifically. So its nothing you can control at all...
this war is about military and economical supremacies and geostrategies.. i.e., about Power.
The first Gulf war was sold as Saddam vs. Kuwait, when in fact it was all about oil, now its sold as Saddam & His WMD, when its all about military dominance and political influence (beware Syria, beware Iran),
But now 'Global Terrorism' is just the perfect excuse, because you can use it as a subterfuge for every damn bomb you drop everywhere in the whole globe. How many potential terrorists are in some muslim african communities? .. thousands. Why don't the US go there and help to prevent the rise of more islamic enemies? > because there's no reward in Africa, no oil, no military interests, its a whole immense desert full of people killing each other (by thousands every month, much more than those who Saddam killed in his country and those who died in 11S all together)... but who cares about that, huh? who needs Africa?
Total pragmatism indeed.
norm: nice to see you use a dictionary, i thought you make stuff up as you go.. :) in my assesment earlier can be synonymous with the word, practical.
anyway.. here are some practical reasons.. not necessarily in that order.
1. get an oil supply that will lesses US dependance on Saudis and give US additional leverage when exherting pressure on their government.
2. get an oil supply that will pay for the war, and supply economy.. (what companies are there now? and how much is the oil price now? i wonder who is getting the money) before the war it was russian and european companies.
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a “vital interest†of “long standing,†he said, and the United States “must have free access to the region’s resources.â€
3. saddam was losing allegiance to his secular principles and beginning to venture to islam. he started to gain suport by helping palestinian terrorists. its a good idea to take him out before he ventures any further, afterall he sits on a pot of gold.
4. seem like he was succeeding in convincing everyone that he has no WMD. but its safe to say he has the knowledge that could be used as a gift to needy terrorists. its good to get him before the sanctions are lifted.
5. nice to have strong military presence close to sources of terrorism to keep tabs on the countries there.
the problem with U.S. policy towards terrorism is that the cause is not being treated. Comparisons can be drawn to medicine; prevention is cheaper and more efficient than surgery.
In order to prevent terrorist attacks from happening, the root causes of terrorism need to be examined and corrected.
Q. Why did the terrorists behind 9/11 resort to flying planes into our buildings?
A. They hate us.
Q. Why do they hate us?
A. Because we believe we are more important than them.
Q. Huh?
A.
1- Their oil should be our oil.
2- The military/industrial complex wants money, human lives be damned.
3- christians are superior and every other religion has direct links to terrorists.
4- People in the US still seem to believe that saddam had WMD's, despite the facts. Also, if this war was really about access to WMD's, we'd be focusing on the ex-soviet states, pakistan, israel, north korea, etc.
5- We want military bases in every country in the world to show our superiority.
My point is that we need to be active in fostering goodwill to the world rather than creating an "us against the world" attitude. We need to show the world that we care about something more than making money.
and before you write me off as being just another liberal, ask yourself what you've been doing in the past 6 years. I spent 4 of them in the army rangers, with 3 deployments to the middle east after 9/11, and nothing annoys me more than people willing to get rich off of my friends' lives.
pasha -
none of those is justification for war.
in particular - to wage war for resources is just flat out wrong - although certainly not without precedent. what's next? should we take over canada for water? switzerland to insure a steady supply of chocolate?
and are you saying we have spent $300 billion to establish a military presence in the middle-east? seems a little pricey to me.
slide009: welcome to my little bit of the internet... now shouldn't you be off working on that competition, applying to better schools or playing some gta3:san andreas too? :)
Nah, I swore off video games (except text-twist from yahoo games). Busy working on preliminary design thoughts for the competition right now. That and prepping for the tri next week.
As for schools, my portfolio is an ongoing process.
btw, when are you going to update your blog?
...unhijack
eric, yesterday John Conyers delivered 560,000 petition signatures to the White House. The White House staff refused him entrance, but accepted the petitions.
I Fought The War & the War Won.
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.
(c) 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
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
[emphasis added]
from:http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html
is this a surprise that we would make something up to start a war? remember the maine dude
no suprise.
just facts.
Rember Washington? said the redcoat.
1700+ dead. killed by chicken hawks.
well, that's american pragmatism..
there are real reasons for going to war..
WMD was just an excuse,..
but its not as simple as that.
so what should we do? leave?
just think of what will happend if US does that..
that's why i am against this rant about how WRONG, EVIL us is..
it doesn't offer any solutions, or benefits.. it will only make this war longer, and more painful.
this war is against terrorism, it was a good idea to take out the source, or potential source(saddam) and engage the enemy in the open field.. but this WMD issue makes US a liar and gives a moral superiority to terrorists, and that's what they need the most of all.
pasha -
if you truly feel this so-called war is a good idea i would like to suggest that you enlist.
recruiting is way off - you are needed more now than ever.
or is it only a good idea if someone elses life is wasted?
i am just saying that pragmatically its a good idea..
and pragmatism is an american virtue..
i don't believe in that ideology.
i don't believe everything that press secretary says.
you really think that people who planned this were only concerned about nuclear weapons? if that was true we would be much more concerned about north korea.
my point is that because of american pragmatism US has underestimated the importance of having a solid ideology for war that would appeal to masses. and that was a huge mistake.
well put shalak.
pasha -
PRAGMATIC (Pronunciation Key)prag·mat·ic Listen: [ prg-mtk ]
adj.
Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
seeing how the facts were being fixed around the policy, and not vice versa - and seeing how this little neo-con adventure has cost $300 billion and taken 1700 soldiers lives - i don't see how it can be called pragmatic.
pasha, actually if your war is exclusively against terrorism you should send some F18 and drop some missiles here in Spain.. there are quite a lot of dormant cells in contact with other Al Qaeda subfactions who reside in the UK.. so send more F16 to Great Britain and start a war there in search of more terrorists too...
terrorism does not live in Iraq, terrorism is in every corner of this planet (including the USA).. and at the same time its nowhere specifically. So its nothing you can control at all...
this war is about military and economical supremacies and geostrategies.. i.e., about Power.
The first Gulf war was sold as Saddam vs. Kuwait, when in fact it was all about oil, now its sold as Saddam & His WMD, when its all about military dominance and political influence (beware Syria, beware Iran),
But now 'Global Terrorism' is just the perfect excuse, because you can use it as a subterfuge for every damn bomb you drop everywhere in the whole globe. How many potential terrorists are in some muslim african communities? .. thousands. Why don't the US go there and help to prevent the rise of more islamic enemies? > because there's no reward in Africa, no oil, no military interests, its a whole immense desert full of people killing each other (by thousands every month, much more than those who Saddam killed in his country and those who died in 11S all together)... but who cares about that, huh? who needs Africa?
Total pragmatism indeed.
norm: nice to see you use a dictionary, i thought you make stuff up as you go.. :) in my assesment earlier can be synonymous with the word, practical.
anyway.. here are some practical reasons.. not necessarily in that order.
1. get an oil supply that will lesses US dependance on Saudis and give US additional leverage when exherting pressure on their government.
2. get an oil supply that will pay for the war, and supply economy.. (what companies are there now? and how much is the oil price now? i wonder who is getting the money) before the war it was russian and european companies.
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a “vital interest†of “long standing,†he said, and the United States “must have free access to the region’s resources.â€
3. saddam was losing allegiance to his secular principles and beginning to venture to islam. he started to gain suport by helping palestinian terrorists. its a good idea to take him out before he ventures any further, afterall he sits on a pot of gold.
4. seem like he was succeeding in convincing everyone that he has no WMD. but its safe to say he has the knowledge that could be used as a gift to needy terrorists. its good to get him before the sanctions are lifted.
5. nice to have strong military presence close to sources of terrorism to keep tabs on the countries there.
Dead on Shalak.
the problem with U.S. policy towards terrorism is that the cause is not being treated. Comparisons can be drawn to medicine; prevention is cheaper and more efficient than surgery.
In order to prevent terrorist attacks from happening, the root causes of terrorism need to be examined and corrected.
Q. Why did the terrorists behind 9/11 resort to flying planes into our buildings?
A. They hate us.
Q. Why do they hate us?
A. Because we believe we are more important than them.
Q. Huh?
A.
1- Their oil should be our oil.
2- The military/industrial complex wants money, human lives be damned.
3- christians are superior and every other religion has direct links to terrorists.
4- People in the US still seem to believe that saddam had WMD's, despite the facts. Also, if this war was really about access to WMD's, we'd be focusing on the ex-soviet states, pakistan, israel, north korea, etc.
5- We want military bases in every country in the world to show our superiority.
My point is that we need to be active in fostering goodwill to the world rather than creating an "us against the world" attitude. We need to show the world that we care about something more than making money.
and before you write me off as being just another liberal, ask yourself what you've been doing in the past 6 years. I spent 4 of them in the army rangers, with 3 deployments to the middle east after 9/11, and nothing annoys me more than people willing to get rich off of my friends' lives.
pasha -
none of those is justification for war.
in particular - to wage war for resources is just flat out wrong - although certainly not without precedent. what's next? should we take over canada for water? switzerland to insure a steady supply of chocolate?
and are you saying we have spent $300 billion to establish a military presence in the middle-east? seems a little pricey to me.
slide009 -
thanks for doing your time, and glad you're home.
norm -
thanks
"1. get an oil supply that will lesses US dependance on Saudis and give US additional leverage when exherting pressure on their government."
pasha, we do not invade other countries because the u.s. has a hunger for oil. nor can we expect other countries to solve our oil problem for us.
good points slide and much respect.
please visit:
www.johnconyers.com
click the link at the bottom to give your support.
slide009: welcome to my little bit of the internet... now shouldn't you be off working on that competition, applying to better schools or playing some gta3:san andreas too? :)
m
hijack....
Nah, I swore off video games (except text-twist from yahoo games). Busy working on preliminary design thoughts for the competition right now. That and prepping for the tri next week.
As for schools, my portfolio is an ongoing process.
btw, when are you going to update your blog?
...unhijack
eric, yesterday John Conyers delivered 560,000 petition signatures to the White House. The White House staff refused him entrance, but accepted the petitions.
i actually thought about writing a fucking massive final post. the last time i did update adam was still in there. yikes...
you should make J write up a recap of the Adam incident. Could include pics and everything.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.