20
WAR IN IRAQ: AFTERMATH 1
O N 19 MARCH 2003, American-led forces invaded Iraq. Less than six weeks later, speaking alongside a banner that read ‘Mission Accomplished’, President Bush triumphantly declared victory over Saddam Hussein. Yet British combat operations in the country only ended in 2009. The aftermath of the invasion saw a series of vicious insurgencies sweep across Iraq. Accordingly, British forces swiftly became embroiled in a difficult counterinsurgency campaign against Shia militia in southern Iraq. In addition to attacking the British, rival militant groups fought each other for power within the regional vacuum. Like the Americans elsewhere in Iraq, British planners and security forces were unprepared.
Broader questions must therefore be asked of intelligence. The role of the JIC was not limited to establishing whether Iraq had WMD (as discussed in the previous chapter). The committee also issued assessments on the aftermath of the invasion. For example, Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development, commissioned a JIC paper at the start of 2003. She asked the committee to assess the situation in southern Iraq before and during an invasion, as well as to predict what might happen after any military action. The final report, issued on 19 February 2003 – one month before the invasion – is reproduced here. Overall, the JIC warned of an unpredictable security and political situation. It predicted a high risk of revenge attacks against former regime officials as well as a settling of scores between armed tribal groups in the region. The committee also warned that the Shia population needed to be involved in any future government of Iraq to ensure popular support for the post-Saddam administration. It played down concerns about Iranian-inspired terrorism as unlikely. There is no mention of al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.
The JIC highlighted five policy implications of its assessment. In doing so, it drew the government’s attention to the importance of swift humanitarian aid, peace enforcement and winning over the local population. Further intelligence followed. In March 2003, the JIC cautioned that al-Qaeda might have ‘established sleeper cells in Iraq to be activated after the coalition operation’. 2 The following month, the committee warned policymakers that ‘in the short term, for many Iraqis the details of the post-Saddam political process will be less important than a restoration of public order and the start of reconstruction’. Putting the issue incredibly bluntly, the JIC stated that ‘the Iraqi population will blame the coalition if progress is slow. Resentment could lead to violence.’ 3
JIC assessments reached the Prime Minister. The committee’s Chairman, John Scarlett, made formal presentations of JIC material to the Cabinet’s Defence and Overseas Policy Committee, chaired by Tony Blair. Although these meetings were fairly infrequent, they did include discussions of Iraq. In addition, Scarlett regularly met with officials from the Prime Minister’s Office and ensured that Blair was kept updated on the latest intelligence. Indeed, Scarlett made a point of notifying David Manning, Blair’s foreign policy adviser, of the assessment reproduced here. Unfortunately, Scarlett cannot recall Blair’s reaction to the committee’s ‘blunt’ conclusions. David Omand, then Intelligence and Security Coordinator, suspected that this assessment was received as ‘part of the flow’. JIC material continued to regularly reach Number 10 as the war progressed. From mid-March, a ‘War Cabinet’, composed of an inner group of senior ministers, met daily. Every morning Scarlett began each meeting with an update of JIC intelligence. Although the JIC’s assessment on southern Iraq could perhaps be considered as too little too late, questions of insurgency and al-Qaeda sat heavily on the JIC’s agenda once the war was underway. 4
Referring to the JIC’s conclusions, Blair later recalled that the situation in southern Iraq was ‘obviously going to be unpredictable’. The JIC’s warnings were ‘right and important’ but given the overwhelming Shia dominance in the region, the Prime Minister thought it would be an ‘easier’ area of operation for Britain than elsewhere in Iraq. The committee’s assessment certainly did not put Blair off operating in Basra and the south. 5
Clearly the post-war planning fell short. Indeed, Tony Blair has openly admitted that this was a ‘failing’. 6 There are two interpretations, however, regarding the JIC’s role. The first is that the government acted upon intelligence assessments and did engage in planning, but the intelligence was flawed. The second is that the government ignored intelligence and planning was severely underdeveloped. Unsurprisingly the then Prime Minister subscribes to the former. He maintains that planning did take place. But according to Blair, it was unfortunately working on flawed assumptions that Iraq had a functioning bureaucracy and civil service. Moreover, plans overly focused on humanitarian and environmental issues related to the possibility of the use of chemical and biological weapons. 7 Interestingly, both of these misassumptions can be seen in the JIC document produced below. On the former, the committee wrote of ‘engaging the remains of the state bureaucracy in the South’. Such surviving networks of influence formed a group with which the JIC thought the British could work. On the latter, the committee specifically concluded that ‘we will have to deal with large numbers of displaced and hungry people, possibly contaminated or panicked by CBW use, at a time when the UN is not fully prepared’.
Similarly, the JIC assessment can be accused of being vague and open to various interpretations. Its conclusions on Iran serve as a case in point. The JIC optimistically predicted that Iran was unlikely to be aggressive, and yet it also warned of Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs and noted links between Tehran and armed Shia groups in the south of Iraq. Blair himself has pointed out that the JIC got it wrong and one can arguably sympathise with him for being poorly advised. The JIC admitted that its intelligence on the region was limited. On the other hand, however, one can criticise Blair for not taking the JIC’s warnings seriously enough. Blair accuses his critics of using excessive hindsight. The JIC assessment made some prophetic points, but arguably only when the reader has the benefit of seeing what actually happened in Iraq. Indeed, Blair maintains that intelligence did not anticipate the eventual situation in Iraq. 8
The second interpretation suggests that the government ignored intelligence assessments and neglected planning. With hindsight, Blair has conceded that Britain could have planned more thoroughly for the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In May 2002 intelligence warned that al-Qaeda had sent Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who went on to become leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq) into the country, but little was done about it. 9 In terms of broader post-war planning, Britain left a great deal to the Americans. 10 Despite the JIC’s assessments on southern Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) unashamedly focused its political and reconstruction efforts on Baghdad, leaving the south, according to a former British official operating in Iraq, ‘in danger of being starved of resources’. Meanwhile, the CPA’s short-lived predecessor, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, was branded an ‘unbelievable mess’ by London’s new envoy in Baghdad, John Sawyers. 11 In April 2003, the deputy chief of the Defence Intelligence Staff told the House of Commons: ‘I am not aware of anything from my knowledge where we explicitly looked at how we should deal with policing in the aftermath of conflict.’ 12
Warnings from the JIC were certainly reinforced by other messages. Major General Tim Cross, the British officer tasked with reconstruction, was so concerned that on his return from a planning discussion in Washington in February 2003, he insisted on briefing the Prime Minister. ‘I did not believe postwar planning was anywhere near ready.’ Part of the problem was deep divisions within Blair’s Cabinet. Neither Clare Short nor Gordon Brown wished to devote significant resources to a war that they found distasteful, still less to cleaning up its aftermath. 13
British civil-military reconstruction efforts did see some initial moderate successes. The Emergency Infrastructure Plan, headed by the Department for International Development (DfID), funded the rebuilding of schools and hospitals. Distribution of money, however, was haphazard and efforts were effectively dissolved in 2004 as the security situation deteriorated. It was three long years until the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and DfID established a formal agency to coordinate British reconstruction efforts. 14 In the words of one analyst, Britain and the US operated ‘on the fly’. 15
The JIC did warn of potential hostilities in southern Iraq. Intelligence noted the importance of winning popular support through reconstruction efforts. However, it was somewhat vague and open to various interpretations. The British government lacked a sufficiently detailed assessment on the post-conflict situation whilst those assessments it did have appear to have been produced only fairly late in the day. This shaped government planning to an extent. Yet the government must also carry its fair share of responsibility. Warnings did eventually appear.
TOP SECRET DECLASSIFIED
JIC Asesssment, 19 February 2003
SOUTHERN IRAQ: WHAT’S IN STORE?
Key Judgements
I. The Iraqi forces currently guarding Southern Iraq are a relatively weak first line of conventional defence. They face rapid defeat. There is little evidence so far that the Iraqis are preparing for a hard-fought defence of Basra and other urban centres.
II. Southern Iraq is the most likely area for the first use of CBW against both coalition forces and the local population.
III. Coalition forces will face large refugee flows, possibly compounded by contamination and panic caused by CBW use. They may also face millions of Iraqis needing food and clean water without an effective UN presence and environmental disaster from burning oil wells.
IV. Iran does not have an agreed policy on Iraq beyond active neutrality. Nevertheless Iran may support small-scale cross-border interventions by armed groups to attack the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK). The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) will continue to meddle in Southern Iraq. Iranian reactions to a coalition presence in Southern Iraq remain unclear, but are unlikely to be aggressive.
V. Post-Saddam the security situation in the South will be unpredictable. There is a high risk of revenge killings of former regime officials. Law and order may be further undermined by settling of scores between armed tribal groups.
VI. Popular support for any post-Saddam administration in the South will depend on adequately involving the Shia in the government of Iraq as a whole as well as engaging the remains of the state bureaucracy in the South, local tribal leaders and Shia clerics in local government.
Policy Implications:
UN authorisation for a post-Saddam administration will be crucial.
We may have to deal with post-Saddam issues in Southern Iraq while fighting continues elsewhere. Offensive military action, provision of humanitarian aid and peace enforcement may have to be pursued simultaneously.
We will have to deal with large numbers of displaced and hungry people, possibly contaminated or panicked by CBW use, at a time when the UN is not fully prepared.
We will need to use all available means now and in future to win over the population and networks of influence in Southern Iraq.
We will need to avoid unhelpful intervention by the Iranians by doing what we can to take account of their interests and concerns, especially about the Turks, Kurds and MEK.
This paper was commissioned by OD Sec to look at the situation in Southern Iraq and what might happen there before, during and after any coalition military action. The paper covers Iraqi military disposition, likely Iraqi regime and popular reactions, Iranian policy and the possible political landscape in Southern Iraq post-Saddam .
Introduction
1. We have limited intelligence on the particular conditions of Southern Iraq. Where possible we have tried to show how Southern Iraq may differ from other parts of the country, but in order to give as full a picture as possible of the conditions there, we have also referred to intelligence describing conditions prevailing throughout the country.
Iraqi Military Dispositions
2. Southern Iraq is currently defended by the III and IV Corps of the regular Iraqi army. Security in the main urban centres is maintained by Iraq’s many security organisations. Unlike Central and Northern Iraq the regular army is not reinforced in the South by divisions of the elite Republican Guard, which are forbidden by UNSCR 949 from moving into the No Drive Zone south of the 32nd parallel. We previously judged that once military action begins, widespread lack of loyalty to the regime will become clear throughout Iraq. Reporting shows the regime particularly concerned about the lack of loyalty of the Shia, who make up a majority of conscripts in the regular army. The absence of the Republican Guard coupled with the regular army’s low morale, poor equipment and limited training mean the forces guarding Southern Iraq are a relatively weak first line of conventional defence. They face rapid defeat in the face of a massive military onslaught.
Southern Iraq: Basic Facts
Estimates suggest roughly 9 million people live in the nine provinces south and east of Baghdad (see map). The largest town is Basra (population 1.5 million). The area is populated by a wide variety of Arab Shia. Roughly half of Iraqi oil production comes from the oil fields of Southern Iraq. Southern Iraq includes Shia Islam’s two holiest cities, Najaf and Kerbala and Iraq’s only coastline, including the large port at Um Qasr.
3. [Intelligence] from mid-January indicates most elements of the 14th Infantry Division of IV Corps, supported by artillery, have redeployed southwards around al-Qurnah, a key town located at a strategic road junction. Other reporting indicates the redeployment of elements of the 18th Infantry division southwards to the Faw peninsula in mid-January, apparently to counter a possible amphibious landing there. [...] We know little about Iraqi plans for the defence of Basra, but there is as yet no sign of preparations for a hard-fought defence of this or other urban centres in Southern Iraq.
Iraqi Response to an Attack
4. Reporting indicates that the regime has contingency plans for a regional military command structure, if a coalition attack severed central control from Baghdad. Saddam has appointed his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid as regional commander of the southern sector of Southern Iraq (covering the provinces of Basra, Dhi Qar, Maysan and Al-Muthanna) with authority over all forces in the area. Iraqi practice in the Iran/Iraq war suggests this would include tactical control over CBW. Ali is a loyal member of Saddam’s inner circle. He was a brutal Governor of occupied Kuwait in 1990/91. He also played a leading role in suppressing the Shia uprising in 1991 and Kurdish rebels in the late 1980s (using chemical weapons against the Kurds). His appointment may reflect an Iraqi leadership view that a particularly loyal and ruthless figure is needed to take command in the South in a crisis, both to suppress the Shia and to maintain discipline among the Iraqi forces. The relative weakness of Iraq’s conventional forces in the South and the fact that those forces will face the brunt of a coalition ground attack mean Southern Iraq is the most likely area for the first use of CBW against both coalition forces and the local population.
5. We previously judged that as a last resort Saddam may seek to pursue a scorched earth policy, including the destruction of oil wells. There is no conclusive intelligence on Iraqi plans but they could:
• defend oil wells against attack;
• set fire to them to stop production, cause pollution and disrupt coalition forces; and
• cause long-term, possibly irreparable, damage to prevent others benefiting from future production.
The potential environmental disaster, coupled with the possible use of CBW against coalition forces and the local population, could cause widespread panic and contamination. This could result in hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and refugees, many needing immediate help.
Systems currently deployed in Southern Iraq with possible CBW capabilities
–at least 20 155mm-artillery pieces (range: up to 39km).
–at least 10 BM-21 multiple rocket launchers (range: 20km).
–at least 2 Ababil-100 missile units (range: 150km)
6. […] Interruption of food supplies under the Oil for Food (OFF) programme, upon which 60% of the Iraqi population depends, could boost the number of displaced persons and refugees throughout Iraq. There may be strong international demands for the immediate provision of food and clean water to millions of Iraqis as well as an immediate environmental clean-up operation. Tackling such problems in Southern Iraq will be complicated by possible CBW contamination. While UN contingency planning has started, some UN officials and outside observers question whether the UN will be fully ready to meet these requirements. The UN will be particularly badly placed if a humanitarian disaster occurs in the South while fighting continues in close proximity.
Shia Reactions
7. Reporting has previously indicated that the regime is concerned about a Shia uprising in the South after the outbreak of hostilities. One report from August 2002 indicates Iraqi plans to use CBW in Southern Iraq to cause mass casualties among the Shia in the event of a US-led attack. The regime would seek to pin the blame for the resulting high level of casualties on the coalition. Another report noted the concerns of the close relatives of senior Shia clerics that the regime might attempt to arrest or assassinate senior Shia clerics in the event of war.
8. Recent reporting confirms our judgement [...] that the Shia will be cautious in opposing Saddam until they see the regime is finished and its capability to retaliate is substantially weakened. The experience of 1991 will be a major influence. The Shia will fear the regime’s use of CBW to crush any uprising and will also remember that their earlier expectations of support from external forces were dashed. Even if the initial severity of any coalition attack makes clear that the regime is finished, the Shia may still fear what the regime could do to them in its dying days. As in 1991, the timing and scale of any uprising is likely to vary between localities, depending upon the level of local tribal and religious leaders’ encouragement. Overall we judge there will be no immediate, unified Shia response to a coalition attack .
Iranian policy
Badr Corps
The Badr Corps is trained and equipped by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and based in camps in Iran. We assess it to be at least 3-5000 strong, but with the addition of reservists this may increase up to 20,000. The Badr Corps operates in Southern, Central and Northern Iraq (There have been reports of a recent incursion in Northern Iraq).
9. Iranian aims in Iraq include preventing refugee flows across its borders; ensuring a leading role for its proteges among the Iraqi Shia (the Supreme Council for an Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI] and its armed wing the Badr Corps); minimising the size and duration of a US presence post-Saddam; and destroying the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), an armed terrorist opposition group supported by Saddam’s regime. Iran has interests throughout Iraq, but may consider it has greatest influence to pursue them in the South through armed Shia groups, such as the Badr Corps.
10. Intelligence on Iranian activity [...] indicates that in early 2003 the Iranians have increased their support for Shia opposition groups and have upgraded their intelligence effort targeted at Southern Iraq. [...] Their national and cultural ties to other Iraqi Arabs outweigh their religious links to Shia Iran. [...] Iran has accepted that there is little support among Iraqi Shia for an Iranian-style theocratic regime.
11. [...] If the coalition does not deal with the MEK, Iran may make limited cross-border rocket attacks on them. [...] The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) might act to undermine any post-Saddam peace that did not take Iran’s concerns into account. Recent reporting indicates that the IRGC is continuing to support incursions of the Badr Corps into Iraq. We judge that both Iranian conservatives and reformers are anxious to avoid provoking a US-led attack on Iran. We therefore assess that Iranian-inspired terrorist attacks on coalition forces are unlikely, unless the Iranians thought the US had decided to attack them after an Iraq campaign.
12. The Iranians have espoused a policy of “active neutrality” on Iraq. But this is not well developed and there is little regime agreement on what “active” means. The regime is pre-occupied with domestic concerns and is not in a strong position to project its power into Iraq. Different elements of the regime may pursue very different policies. Hardliners will oppose cooperation with a US-led post-Saddam regime. Some moderates, however, will wish to establish a good working relationship with the international community to ensure Iran plays a major role in reconstruction. The Iranians will react negatively, however, if they feel we are attempting to marginalize them.
The Political and Security Landscape post-Saddam
13. We know very little about the Iraqi Shia. [...] They are not politically organised above the local, tribal level and there are no clear candidates for overall Shia leadership. They are very diverse, straddling the urban/rural and secular/Islamist divides. They have had little opportunity to discuss their preferred political arrangements. Shia politics post-Saddam therefore look highly unpredictable.
14. Saddam’s regime has centralised power and stifled opposition. The only networks of influence in the South that exist outside of the Ba’ath party are the tribes and the followers of some of the senior Shia clerics. Once the regime has collapsed, coalition forces will find the remains of the state’s bureaucratic structures, local tribal sheikhs and religious leaders. There will also be a number of fractious armed groups, some strengthened by arms seized during the collapse of the regime. The external opposition will attempt to assert authority, but only those with armed forces on the ground or support from senior Shia clerics, such as SCIRI or Da’wa, another Shia Islamist group, are likely to succeed to any extent. [...]
15. Given that the Shia in Southern Iraq have borne the brunt of regime oppression since 1991, there is a high probability of revenge killing of Ba’ath officials, both Sunni and Shia. This could be particularly widespread and bloody, if the regime collapses quickly and few Ba’ath officials have the chance to escape. Beyond that the extent of any further breakdown of law and order is difficult to predict. But there will be large numbers of armed groups and some potential for tribal score-settling, including between those who have opposed and collaborated with Saddam’s regime. There may also be competition for limited food. Overall there is a risk of a wider breakdown as the regime’s authority crumbles. There are no indications, however, of Shia preparations for an all-out civil war against Sunni Iraqis. Coalition forces may be forced to impose peace in Southern Iraq, including the disarmament of armed groups. As we previously judged Iraqis may not welcome coalition military forces, despite welcoming the overthrow of Saddam. The establishment of popular support for any post-Saddam administration cannot be taken for granted. It could be undermined by:
• damage to holy sites;
• major civilian casualties;
• lack of a UNSCR authorising a post-Saddam administration;
• heavy-handed peace enforcement;
• failure to meet popular expectations over humanitarian aid and reconstruction;
• failure rapidly to restore law and order;
• failure to involve the Shia adequately in a post-Saddam administration; and
• failure to be seen to run the oil industry in the interests of the Iraqi people.
16. There are factors, however, that could work in our favour:
• surviving networks of influence with whom we could work, including remains of state bureaucracy and food-distribution networks, tribal leaders and religious figures; and
• receptivity of the population to information from external media and leaflet drops.
Notes
1 .
This chapter was written before the Iraq inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot reported.
2 .
‘Sir David Omand, Transcript’, Evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, 20 January 2010, p. 40.
3 .
JIC, ‘Iraq: The Initial Landscape Post-Saddam’, 16 April 2003.
4 .
‘Sir John Scarlett, Transcript’, Evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, 8 December 2009, pp. 13, 14, 15, 24; ‘Sir David Omand, Transcript’, Evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, 20 January 2010, pp. 15, 17.
5 .
‘Rt Hon. Tony Blair, Transcript’, Evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, 21 January 2011, pp. 120–1.
6 .
Ibid., p. 122.
7 .
Ibid., p. 123.
8 .
Ibid., pp. 121, 153.
9 .
Ibid., p. 151.
10 .
See Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair quoted ibid., pp. 122, 123–4.
11 .
Andrew Mumford, The Counter-insurgency Myth: The British Experience of Irregular Warfare (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), pp. 128–9.
12 .
‘Evidence of Mr Martin Howard, Lt General John McColl, Major General Nick Houghton and Major General Bill Rollo, 26 January 2005’, in House of Commons Defence Committee, Iraq: An Initial Assessment of Post-conflict Operations, Vol. II: Oral and Written Evidence , HC65-II (London: The Stationery Office, 2005).
13 .
‘Post-invasion Iraq: The Planning and the Reality after the Invasion from Mid-2002 to the End of August 2003 – A Witness Statement by Major General Tim Cross CBE’, 7 December 2009, http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/39160/timcross-statement.pdf (last accessed 12 November 2013).
14 .
Mumford, The Counter-insurgency Myth , p. 130.
15 .
Andrew Rathmell, ‘Planning Post-conflict Reconstruction in Iraq: What Can We Learn?’, International Affairs 81/5 (2005), p. 1031.