Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 559)
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2005
MR ADAM
INGRAM MP, MAJOR
GENERAL NICK
HOUGHTON CBE AND
DR ROGER
HUTTON
Q540 Mr Viggers: The Prime Minister
commented on the handover of control after the Iraqi General Elections
and the withdrawal of troops. Later the Prime Minister's spokesman
said the Prime Minister was setting out "a timeline, rather
than a timescale". It maybe, of course, that the words are
not that meaningful but is there a profundity there which is not
readily available to the casual observer?
Mr Ingram: I think there is, timescales
tend to have drop dead dates on them, do they not? It tends to
be by 30 March, 1 April or 30 September or whenever and that is
how I would view it. I do not know precisely how the Prime Minister
would answer this question, but I think he would articulate it
in the same way, hopefully.
Q541 Richard Ottaway: Perhaps.
Mr Ingram: I hope that would be
the case. Timescales are very specific dates. Timelines are aspirational,
this is the process by which we would be looking at this. We say
that there is a six month period of change likely to take place
but we do not say "In the first month we will achieve this,
in the third month we will achieve that". I think maybe that
is the difference. I think it is the right use of the word timelines
and it is a way we would seek to operate because there are no
certainties in what we are doing in this area, as there are no
certainties in the Balkans or in Northern Ireland or anywhere
else for that matter.
Q542 Mr Viggers: Looking at the evolution
of the role, can you confirm that the Extremely High Readiness
Reserve, formed I think by the First Battalion Royal Fusiliers,
will be returning to their base in Cyprus at the end of this month?
Mr Ingram: That is the plan, yes.
We are setting that and we are holding to that.
Q543 Mr Viggers: Do you anticipate
it will be necessary for us to deploy further troops to make up
for the troops which have been withdrawn by five nations?
Mr Ingram: No, we have no plans
to do so. What we have done, as we have announced, in terms of
the Dutch and the Dutch withdrawal, we have taken on a contingent
responsibility there.
Major General Houghton: 240 initially,
and it will come down to about 190 when those initial numbers
come down.
Q544 Mr Viggers: Do you see any other
significant evolution or changes in our troop deployments in the
next six months?
Mr Ingram: No. It depends what
you mean by significant. Define terms, I would say. If someone
gets hung up on an extra 200, up or down, or 500, up or down,
what does it mean? You are asking for the definition of timelines
and timescales. I could have an interpretation of the word significant
but you may have a different figure when you use the word, I do
not know.
Q545 Mr Viggers: United Nations Security
Council 1546 stipulates that the mandate of the coalition's forces
". . . shall be reviewed at the request of the Government
of Iraq or 12 months from the date of this resolution", the
resolution was 8 June 2004. Is 8 June 2005 regarded as a very
significant date or do you accept it will just go past?
Mr Ingram: It must be a significant
date because it is part of the UN mandate. That must be one of
those dates which we all focus on. It is not in our gift to change
that either willingly or vicariously just because we feel we want
to do it or because we are determined. We have set the system,
we are there as part of our understanding of UN resolutions, we
are now working to a UN mandate and we will always focus our attention
on UN determination and views in all this. We seek to bring that
to mature conclusions.
Q546 Mr Viggers: The status of forces
agreement, so far, under which we are within Iraq, do you regard
it as being a topical issue at the moment and possibly needing
amendment, as has been commented by one Iraqi commentator?
Mr Ingram: I am not familiar with
the comments which have been made.
Q547 Mr Viggers: It was Ahmed Chalabi.
Mr Ingram: There is nothing that
I know of to say that we have grave concerns here or whatever.
Major General Houghton: It was
negotiated extensively in the run-up to the passing of sovereignty
28 January last year. Some of it was contained still in extant
CPA orders and some within side letters to the United Nations
mandate. It caused no concerns at the time and I am not aware
of any specific concerns which have arisen in connection with
this.
Q548 Mr Viggers: Has thought been
given to the projection of the sovereign bases within Iraq on
a long term basis or a relationship akin to that which the United
States had in Germany after the war?
Mr Ingram: This was not part of
our planning approach but, again, maybe the General has more information
on that.
Major General Houghton: I can
only speak from a specific UK perspective but there is no intention
to have any long term bases strategy vis-a"-vis Iraq.
I cannot comment, because I simply do not know, what the nature
of any long term plans are for the Americans in that respect.
Q549 Mr Hancock: I would like to
deal with some issues relating to the navy presence out there.
If I may, can I go back to what you said earlier about the duration
of our stay there and the role of the current election outcome.
Do you plan that they will be able to have a say about whether
or not the coalition stay or would that be a decision for their
successors who will be elected at the end of this year after they
have agreed a constitution and then elected a parliament? Certainly,
listening to Mr Bush, he would suggest the Americans do not see
it as an option for the current elected assembly to make that
decision on whether we stay or go. Are we planning to be there
until at least after the next round of elections?
Mr Ingram: There is no difference
in our language between the US and the UK. Obviously you are interpreting
it in one particular way, we do not interpret it that way. We
have said as a consistent message we put forward that this is
a matter for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people's views have been
expressed in one sense through the ballot box; they have another
process, you are right, to go through once the constitution is
in place but there is no-one really arguing. We have been through
this in terms of our first answer about how there are different
languages being used because of different audiences in all this
but the reality on the ground is one that they want us to stay,
they see the need for us to stay, they are not ready yet to take
on the enormity of the security task, although they are improving.
Again, we will probably touch on all of that in this afternoon's
session. I could not envisage a situation where there was a determination
within the new assembly which was saying: "Coalition forces
please get out" because that would then be articulated in
other ways as well through the form of the UN and other means,
that somehow we would change our mandate unilaterally, I just
do not see that eventuality happening. Some may want to fault
that language to try and make it look as if we are there in the
long run. I am not saying you are saying that.
Q550 Mr Hancock: No, no, I am not.
Mr Ingram: You are not saying
that. Others want people to believe that is the case, that we
are there as an imposed force, as an occupying force, we are not,
we are there under a UN mandate and will continue to operate under
that UN mandate. We will work in concert with the wishes both
of the Iraqi Government, as it forms, and also with the wishes
of the Iraqi people.
Q551 Mr Viggers: In operational terms
then, your two colleagues who are intimately responsible in that
field and who are speaking with the same voice as the Americans,
if the Americans are planning for at least a full year stay, is
that what you are working to in operational terms?
Major General Houghton: Our view
on this is for all of us to accept that we identify there is an
absolute mutual benefit between ourselves and the elected Iraqi
Government in our continued presence there for the foreseeable
future which is defined not in the sense of time but in the sense
of conditionality. The conditionality here is that in all respects
the Iraqis are able themselves to assume responsibility for continuing
to prosecute what will still be a relatively complex counter-insurgency
operation. It is difficult to put a specific time on that. It
is a conditions based approach. I hesitate to say in respect of
months how many that would be. Between us, the Americans and the
Iraqi Government there is a mutual understanding of the eventual
determination of the Iraqis to assume this responsibility. If
you like, it is captured in the stages of the overall campaign
plan, which sees us at the moment in the situation of partnership
but moves to one of Iraqi self-reliance.
Q552 Mr Hancock: If I could move
on to the navy. Some Members of the Committee were fortunate enough
to go on HMS Marlborough when they were in the area. Is
it your view that we will continue to have a naval presence there
as part of that task force looking after the maritime interests
of Iraq?
Mr Ingram: The answer to that
is yes, there are no plans to change that posture at all for the
foreseeable future.
Q553 Mr Hancock: What are our plans
about the training of the Iraqi coastal forces and giving them
some assistance and getting the right equipment so they can not
only protect their sea base assets but also be able to patrol
up and down the Euphrates?
Major General Houghton: At the
moment, the nature of the development of the Iraqi navy is relatively
modest: five patrol crafts, five inflatable boats, effectively
to do things in support of riverine security and that sort of
thing. As the Minister has said, clearly there are a limited amount
of resources which can be poured into the development of the Iraqi
security architecture overall and those elements which are really
more related to Iraq's external relations will probably still
be let in some residual partner relationship with the international
community facing external threats. One of the things that they
could not conceivably resource at this stage is that of maritime
protection, particularly their offshore oil installations.[1]
We envisage that the UK and other international partners will
play an enduring role in what we term strategic overhaul option
well after all the localised security issues are resolved.
Q554 Mr Hancock: Including escorting
tankers in and out of that very confined space, protecting tankers
coming into the area?
Major General Houghton: Protecting
tankers coming in, yes.
Mr Ingram: You mean in terms of
Umm Qasr?
Major General Houghton: To the
offshore oil installations, yes.
Mr Ingram: Can I say it is planned
that the Iraqi Navy will take on operational responsibility for
the oil platform from July 2005. Just like the ground forces they
are building a capability in this and as ever that will be tested
on the basis of how good they are. Hopefully they get to that
level of competency and then that is another task we do not need
to perform. Those are the plans.
Q555 Mr Havard: Can I say, we visited
it—some of us did—it is in a terrible state, and all
the rest of it, but there was a US naval infantry—apparently
they have such a thing naval infantry—stationed on the oil
platforms themselves protecting them. We saw some of the small
patrol boats going past to help to secure it. There were some
what seemed to be private Iraqi security guards on it as well,
there were four of them, I think, and the Americans said to us
"We know where four Kalashnikovs are". You are saying
that the Iraqis are going to take control of security of that
installation from July?
Mr Ingram: The advice I have got
is that the plans are for the Iraqi navy to assume that responsibility
for the oil platform security as from—
Q556 Richard Ottaway: As from when?
Mr Ingram: As from July 2005.
In terms of perhaps individual personnel, we can find out more
about that and sometimes it is better not to say exactly what
is on the platform in security terms because that just draws attention
to levels of security. We have always got to be careful. The same
applies to our own oil platforms and oil rigs in the North Sea.
You do not spill out all of the data on how you secure those.
Q557 Mr Havard: You do not secure
it with four Kalashnikovs.
Mr Ingram: I have to say they
are well secured because that is absolutely critical.
Q558 Mr Havard: Absolutely.
Mr Ingram: There has to be a focus
on it, and indeed in terms of economic terms they have to be secured
but also in environmental terms they have to be secured.
Q559 Mr Hancock: Can I just take
you back to the navy's role. There is the ongoing problem, presumably,
with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their ship borne activities.
Does that continue to cause us problems in that area? Do we have
any plans to equip the Iraqi naval forces with anything bigger
than what they have got now, going up to say a frigate of their
own, which would allow them to protect the deep water access to
their country?
Major General Houghton: We do
not have any UK specific plans in terms of the development of
the Iraqi navy to that level of capability.
1 Ev 129 Back
| 
