Downing Street Says

Asked if he could help characterise the announcement made today by Geoff Hoon and whether it should be seen in the context of improving security before the handover of sovereignty the PMOS stated for the purposes of clarity that today’s announcement was the result of recommendations made from British commanders in the field in our particular area, about the needs in our particular area. That should be distinguished from the consultation in progress with our coalition partners about the overall strategic position as we move towards 30 June and Iraqi-isation of the position. Those strategic discussions were continuing and should not be confused with today’s announcement. Today’s announcement was the result of an assessment on the ground of our needs, particularly in the run up to 30 June where increased attempts by terrorists and others to inflict casualties on the coalition forces were expected. This was because they wanted to disrupt the handover to a sovereign Iraqi Government. There had always been this expectation and today’s announcement should be seen in that light.

Asked if this meant that no further troops would be deployed till after 30 June the PMOS said that the reality was that because of the lead times of such decisions it was always going to take longer. Therefore he would make the distinction here between short term and medium term decisions. The precise time scales involved would only become apparent if and when a decision was made and that point had not yet been reached. In response to further questioning he said that any decision would be taken because of assessments of the need and the strategic view of what happened in Iraq and for no other reasons. In terms of public opinion the Prime Minister had firmly stated that it was his view that we must stay in Iraq till the job was done and what we were trying to do was to get Iraq to a position where it could take responsibility for its own security. Any strategic decision would be taken in light of that.

Asked if this meant in light of today’s operational decision that any further decisions would be political ones the PMOS responded that that was too simplistic a characterisation. Any judgement was made on the basis of a military assessment on the ground and the assessment of what is necessary to deliver the overall goals of the coalition in Iraq. That was what would shape any future strategic announcements.

Asked what the net change of troops would be following today’s announcement the PMOS said that there would be a slight increase of about 370 personnel.

2 Comments »

When I was involved in the production of new products we aimed to spend 80% of our time planning and 20% producing. This resulted in getting the desired product on time and to both quality and cost.
We produced very high quality, real time, software for the telecomms industry.
The most important thing to know was the crteria that defined ‘finished’.
Without knowing what constituted ‘finished’ the Software Quality Assurance department [or the client] would continue testing – forever….
Without a definition of ‘finished’ for the activities in Iraq the UK will be stuck there forever…
Why do the PMOS, TB & GWB keep saying "we will stay till the job is ‘finished’" without letting us know what constitutes ‘finished’?
Maybe they don’t know.
This is the point in my postings where I always ask for a job so – gis a job ‘cos – given enough money – I could create a list of criteria for ‘finished’ 😉
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 28 May 2004 on 6:40 pm | Link
"Finished" can mean so many things.

– When the government is "finished" via removal from power;
– When the politicians are "finished" with having to defend themselves;
– When the Iraqi government is "finished" enough to be directly attributed blame for failure by the media, rather than attribution to the occupying powers;
– When the military budgets run out, and Parliament has ‘finished’ giving more money to them;
– When Blair fails to do well in the election;
– When Bush fails to do well in the election;
– When public opinion spins out of control;

Or, alternately…

When Rupert Murdoch says it’s over. Because we all know what happens the moment he does.
Comment by Gregory Block — 1 Jun 2004 on 11:51 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, May 27, 2004

Troops

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries