Editor's note: In April
2002, Tony Blair, the British prime minister,
visited US President George W. Bush at his ranch in
Crawford, Texas.
The weekend meeting has long been identified
as a key moment in the buildup to the US-led
invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but details of what
was discussed between the pair have remained a
matter of speculation.
Middle East Eye has seen a copy of a secret
memo about the meeting written by David Manning,
Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, who
accompanied him to Crawford.
It was sent to Simon McDonald, principal
private secretary to foreign secretary Jack Straw,
and shared with five other senior British officials:
Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Mike Boyce,
chief of defence staff; Peter Watkins, principal
private secretary to defence secretary Geoff Hoon;
Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the US; and
Michael Jay, permanent secretary at the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
The text of that memo is published below for the
first time.
Subject: Prime Minister’s visit
to the US April 5 – 7 2002.
Sent: April 8, 2002
From: David Manning
To: Simon McDonald
CC'd: Jonathan Powell, Sir Mike
Boyce, Peter Watkins, Christopher Meyer, Sir Michael
Jay
The Prime Minister and Mrs Blair were the guests
of President and Mrs Bush at Crawford, Texas, from
April 5 – 7.
Much of the [Blair-Bush] discussions were tete a
tete. However, Jonathan Powell and I joined the
President and the PM at Crawford ranch for informal
talks on the morning of Saturday April 6.
Condi Rice [Bush's national security advisor] and
Andy Card [Bush's chief of staff] accompanied Bush.
Among the issues discussed was Iraq and other
topics separately.
This letter is exceptionally sensitive and the PM
instructed it should be very tightly held, it should
be shown only to those with a real need to know and
no further copies should be made.
Bush said he and the PM had discussed Iraq on
their own over dinner the previous evening.
At present Centcom had no war plan as such.
Thinking ahead so far was on a broad and central
level, though a very small Centcom cell had recently
been established in conditions of great secrecy to
look at the detailed military planning.
Condi Rice said 99 per cent of Centcom were
unaware of this.
When it had done more work Bush would be ready to
agree to UK and US planners sitting down together to
examine the options. He wanted us to work through
the issues together. Whatever plan emerged we had to
ensure victory. We could not afford to fail.
But it would be essential to ensure that acting
against Saddam enhanced rather than diminished
regional stability. He had therefore reassured the
Turks that there was no question of the break-up of
Iraq and the emergence of a Kurdish state.
But there were nevertheless a number of
imponderables.
He didn’t know who would take Saddam’s place if
and when we toppled him.
But he didn’t much care. He was working on the
assumption that anyone would be an improvement.
Nevertheless Bush accepted we needed to manage
the PR aspect of all this with great care.
He accepted we needed to put Saddam on the spot
over the UN inspectors, we should tell him that we
wanted proof of his claim that he was not developing
WMDs. This could only be forthcoming if UN
inspectors were allowed in on the basis that they
could go anywhere inside Iraq at any time.
Bush added that Saddam could not be allowed to
have any say over the nationality or composition of
the inspection team.
He said the timing of any action against Saddam
would be very important. He would not want to launch
any operation before the US Congressional elections
in the autumn. Otherwise he would be accused of
warmongering for electoral benefit.
In effect this meant there was a window of
opportunity between the beginning of November and
the end of February.
‘Although we may not decide to do it this year at
all.’
The PM said no one could doubt the world would be
a better place if there were regime change in Iraq.
But in going down the inspectors route, we would
have to give careful thought to how we framed the
ultimatum to Saddam to allow them to do their job.
Saddam would very probably try to obstruct the
inspectors and play for time. This was why it was so
important we insisted they must be allowed in at any
time and be free to visit any place or installation.
The PM said we needed an accompanying PR strategy
that highlighted the risks of Saddam’s WMD programme
and his appalling human rights record. Bush strongly
agreed.
The PM said this approach would be important in
managing European public opinion and in helping the
President construct an international coalition.
The PM would emphasise to European partners that
Saddam was being given an opportunity to co-operate.
If, as he expected, Saddam failed to do so, the
Europeans would find it very much harder to resist
the logic that we must take action to deal with an
evil regime that threatens us with its WMD
programme.
We would still face the question of why we had
decided to act now, what had changed?
The answer had to be that we must think ahead,
this was one of the lessons of 9/11: failure to take
action in good time meant the risks would only grow
and might force us to take much more costly action
later.
The President agreed with Mr Blair’s line of
argument.
It was also Bush’s view, though he would not be
saying this publicly, that if a moderate secular
regime succeeded Saddam in Iraq this would have a
favourable impact on the region particularly on
Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Comment:
The PM later commented to me privately that he
had spoken again to Bush about the issue of UN
inspectors. Bush had acknowledged that there was
just a possibility that Saddam would allow them in
and go about their own business. If that happened we
would have to adjust our approach accordingly.
Meanwhile it was worth ramping up the pressure on
Saddam and making it plain that if he didn’t accept
the inspectors we reserved the right to go in and
deal with him.
The PM also told me that Bush had been clear that
he wanted to build a broad coalition for his Iraq
policy. This had apparently persuaded him to dismiss
those on the American Right who were arguing there
was no need and no point in bothering with UN
inspectors.
George Bush senior may have been influential on
this point. Bush told the PM separately that the US
must construct a coalition for dealing with Iraq
whatever 'Right wing kooks' might be saying.
It is clear from these exchanges that military
planning is not yet advanced very far. Only when
more progress is made will Bush be ready to allow
our own planners to discuss the options with Centcom.
It also seems clear that Bush has still not finally
decided that military action will be feasible at the
end of this year, even if he has provisionally
earmarked the November-February period for a
possible campaign.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent Media
Registration is necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.