Authors: Tom Bower
The army's plight in Iraq â both financial and political â could not be solved as easily.
Just days before becoming chief of the defence staff, General Mike Walker discovered that he could not get £10 million from the Treasury to hire engineers. Gordon Brown and his department had become, in his view, âa drag on our system'. Trying to find the money to provide water and electricity in Basra, Walker stumbled onto a stalemate between the military, Whitehall, the politicians and the aid workers, a situation that only Blair could resolve. He was determined that on this occasion the prime minister's struggle with his chancellor should not be allowed to interfere with the fate of 42,000 servicemen and women.
The army had not been greeted as liberators by Basra's 1.3 million inhabitants, yet the city was relatively peaceful. Since there was no mandate for nation-building, British soldiers were seen sunbathing and body-building while awaiting UN or NATO forces to take over from them. On the basis of the original plan â âfirst in, first out' â General Mike Jackson ordered that the army should start to return on 19 April. By August, 32,500 soldiers would be back in Europe, leaving just 9,500 troops in southern Iraq until 2004. Walker doubted whether the plan would endure, but he was receiving no guidance from Downing Street.
Just before the war ended, Blair had finally agreed to Andrew Turnbull's suggestion that a committee should direct Britain's aid to Iraq. Jack Straw chaired the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Ministerial Committee on Iraq Reconstruction. From the outset, he found
himself embroiled in a turf war between the army, the Treasury and DFID, Clare Short's department, which was directly responsible for overseeing the reconstruction of southern Iraq. Straw blamed Short for its inactivity. âShort and DFID didn't come to meetings,' Admiral Mike Boyce discovered during his last days as chief of the defence staff. âShe showed no will to support the army either with money or in human terms.' Blair's intense efforts to prevent her resignation had been counterproductive.
Because of her disapproval of the war, Short encouraged her officials to be semi-detached from the government and reluctant to use soldiers for civil work. Suma Chakrabarti, DFID's permanent secretary, rejected Kevin Tebbit's request for money to train the Iraqi police and dispense aid. âIt doesn't fit our poverty criteria,' he told him. Without either the finance or the organisation, British experts were not dispatched to Iraq. âIt was a breakdown,' Boyce realised within the first week of occupation. âI don't know why they didn't come.'
Short revealed her anger on 15 April, six days after Saddam's statue was pulled down. In a BBC interview, she listed the humanitarian plight, the disorder in Baghdad, America's âillegality' and finally condemned Blair's conduct once again as âreckless'. âTreachery,' was Blair's verdict on both her and Brown.
Blair was fretting. Still no WMDs had been found, and reports from Paris, Berlin and Moscow were discouraging. Those governments emphasised their belief that Saddam did not possess the weapons. Facing the Commons in the past, Blair's confident delivery would have brushed aside his critics but, in the debate on 18 April, he played for safety and, rather than mentioning the WMDs, boasted of Saddam's fall as being comparable to Hitler's.
During the third week of peace, ministers heard that Curveball's so-called âmobile laboratory for the manufacture of biological agents' had been found. American soldiers then reported that the machine in fact manufactured meteorological balloons. âBollocks. Where does this leave us?' asked Geoff Hoon. Others in Whitehall shuddered nervously.
No minister, transport minister Alistair Darling noticed, dared to raise the subject of WMDs in that week's Cabinet.
Just as some newspapers were accusing Blair of having blood on his hands, Richard Dearlove rushed into No. 10. âBits and pieces', he reported, had been found, meaning old Russian Scud rockets. âA scientist has just come over with his laptop,' he told Blair, referring to an Iraqi fugitive, âso we should get the hard intelligence soon.' No more credible promises were heard from Dearlove and, with those words, the curtain was finally lowered on his reputation.
During that last week of April, the failure to find WMDs was âlike a bucket of cold water' for Lieutenant General Rob Fry, the chief of staff in Northwood. Although Kevin Tebbit could not recall âa moment of collective embarrassment or confession' within the MoD, Desmond Bowen, the senior policy adviser, admitted to Tebbit that âWe're dumbfounded, amazed and horrified.' In public, Blair maintained his customary cool performance. âBefore people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a little bit,' he said. At that moment, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, the commander of the British invading forces based in Qatar, sensed that Blair's grip over the machinery of government was faltering. To prevent the public sensing any wobble, Alastair Campbell encouraged
The Times'
Tom Baldwin, one of his trusted journalists, to write the opposite. Under the headline âBlair Has Emerged Bolder and Braver from War in Iraq', Baldwin described âBlair the Bold's' intention to gamble against Brown's obstruction on foundation hospitals and tuition fees.
In early May, Mike Jackson toured Basra, the first of over twenty British generals who visited the city without speaking any Arabic and without any special training in the unique circumstances of the region. Jackson was horrified. The British army lacked experts and money. Because of Short's âcomplete lack of direction', none of the non-governmental organisations expected to rebuild Iraq had arrived. Without the necessary equipment and expertise to restore essential services, the army was struggling. âIt is startlingly apparent', Jackson
reported to London, âthat we are not delivering that which was deemed to be promised and was expected.' Nothing was to be said in public, Jackson ordered his staff: âThis is a good-news story. Our political masters are happy. We're not rocking the boat. Don't start a bad-news story.' He would subsequently be accused of being âGeneral Hypocrite' for failing to publicise the truth.
Blair followed Jackson to Basra. There were no Iraqis shouting âTony' to welcome the celebrity liberator. He was cheered by British soldiers, but in private he heard about their frustration and the sabotaging of their efforts by the locals. On his return to London, Blair told Turnbull to put Whitehall on âa war footing' to dispatch experts. Turnbull mentioned the army's complaints about Straw's committee. âWe were cross', said Walker, âthat departments would not get focused and refused to take Iraq seriously. At the meetings, people arrived, gave their fiver and then disappeared.' To relieve the tension among ministers and create harmony in Basra, Walker asked Blair to appoint a Cabinet minister uniquely responsible for Iraq. Without a special government department that would âmake sure that everyone is steaming in the same direction', he warned, the British position would deteriorate. Blair refused and asked Straw to energise his committee.
Soon after, civil servants noticed Blair's reluctance to attend the committee's meetings. His absence, some speculated, coincided with the failure to find the WMDs; others marked the moment his eyes glazed over when Patricia Hewitt, according to one general's swipe, âbanged on about women's rights in Basra'. Even Hewitt noticed the general's disdain over her contribution. The army, she thought, was foolish not to recognise that only with Iraqi women's engagement could the country be transformed. But the army wanted £10 million to provide water, not to engineer a social revolution.
Without Blair demanding action from his ministers to promote âvital British interests', Straw's own enthusiasm waned and Hoon became angry. The army's budget, he told Blair, was falling, while DFID's was increasing. Yet Short's department still refused to dispatch
teachers, currency experts, engineers or policemen to Basra. âBlair was in charge of the system but, with the lack of focus, the system was failing,' observed Bowen from the MoD. Once Blair stopped attending the committee, Straw would make his own excuses after thirty minutes, and soon Hoon became reluctant to attend at all. âThe Ministry of Defence could not do anything,' said Tebbit. âI found it embarrassing.' Short's fiery resignation on 12 May made no difference other than to cause Blair to curse his timidity for not dismissing her earlier. She was replaced by Valerie Amos, a professional quangoist born in British Guyana who was ennobled in 1997.
The stagnation in London continued, reflecting the faltering conditions in Baghdad. Blair sent John Sawers, a Foreign Office adviser, to the Iraqi capital to discover the reasons. His report, âIraq: What's Gone Wrong?', delivered in early May, described a breakdown of law and order. He blamed Jay Garner, an ineffectual general who was a personal friend of George Bush. His appointment as America's director of reconstruction had confirmed Washington's lack of any post-war plans for Iraq other than to dispense suitcases of cash.
Sawers recommended that the American command's request for British troops to be sent to help in Baghdad should be approved. In particular, he wanted the 16 Air Assault Brigade to be dispatched from Basra. The 5,000 battle-ready commandos, he wrote, were ideal for patrolling Sadr City, a volatile area in Baghdad. Blair approved the plan, but Walker objected.
âThere's only so much we can do,' he told Blair. âWe have limited resources. It would be a logistical nightmare.'
âCan't we increase troop numbers in Iraq?' asked Blair.
âNo, we cannot, Prime Minister,' replied Walker. The government's plan, he explained, was to withdraw the army out of Iraq as quickly as possible. To support a brigade in Sadr City would require another 10,000 back-up troops and rotation for men who had spent too long on the front line. Blair, Walker realised, did not understand that military plans could not be changed on a whim.
Walker also found a new gripe. Sawers was earning a reputation for excessive interference by continuing to contradict the general. âWe don't want to get involved in another Fallujah,' said Walker, referring to an American assault that had devastated an Iraqi town. At least 5,000 British soldiers, summarised Walker, would be lost in the mayhem of supporting the Americans in Sadr City. âI didn't think they were going to change the price of fish,' he would say. The military, Walker said, adapting Rab Butler's famous phrase, âis the art of the possible'. Blair was disappointed, but concealed his exasperation over the fact that the British refusal to dispatch the troops would irritate the Americans. He did not overrule the military's advice.
Towards the end of May, Walker returned to Downing Street to brief Blair about his first visit to Iraq, which coincided with the arrival from Washington of Paul Bremer as America's governor, replacing Jay Garner. Without understanding the complexities of Iraq's divided society, Bremer used his vice-regal powers to demobilise the Iraqi army, allowing ex-soldiers to disappear unpaid with their guns. He also abolished the Ba'ath Party. Since most civil servants were Ba'athists, Iraq was effectively deprived of a civilian government.
Bremer's decision initiated a civil war for which the American army was unprepared. Walker, similarly lacking experience of the Arab world, admitted that he had not grasped Bremer's âcomplete misunderstanding about Iraq's psychology'. However, he could not mistake Bremer's disdain for the British. âWe got cold-shouldered by Bremer,' he reported. Blair did not react. The situation in Basra, Walker continued, was worse than he had anticipated. He had arrived with âno thoughts that it would go wrong', and was pleased that British soldiers were patrolling there without flak jackets among supportive Iraqis. But, he told Blair, showing him what he called his âoptimistic charts', the army was stumped. Not only was the reconstruction package delayed, but the army's training of Iraqis to be policemen â a priority for Blair â had been unsuccessful. He cautioned that, in a city riddled with corruption, British policemen found training the locals âmost difficult'. The British intelligence
agencies, he added, had been âclearly misinformed'. The JIC, in a prewar report, had predicted that the Iranians were âunlikely to be aggressive'. The reality, he reported, was that they âare exploiting the situation, but we cannot find anyone'. Army intelligence officers could not find the Iranians fomenting revolt and, even with the SAS's help, the military could not seal the border with Iran.
This was the moment when rigorous questioning of Walker would have extracted hard truths about an underfunded army. But Blair did not welcome precision, and Walker, who had risen to the top by going with the flow, saw no point in imitating Boyce and irritating Blair. Even had Blair asked, Walker could not have offered any perspective regarding the consequences of the government's decisions. He was a loyal servant rather than a sage, chosen by Hoon because, as a member of the Royal Anglian Regiment rather than the upper-class Guards Regiment, âhe was not a social snob but a breath of fresh air; a man who, unlike Boyce, understood how to operate in the political context'. Hoon had not considered that the historic antagonism between Jackson and Walker undermined a considered discussion among the army chiefs.
Others recognised that Blair's predicament was self-made. He had excluded Hoon, Tebbit and any Iraqi specialists from his meeting with Walker, choosing to rely on a plain soldier who was, like himself, unversed in history. A man of few words, the general believed that the military should not interfere in politics or discuss with the prime minister whether his judgement âmade sense'. He left Downing Street satisfied with his honest report. Blair's mask did not reveal whether he recognised that he had just moved closer to the precipice.