Army chief and spy boss told Cameron not to take on Gaddafi
SECURITY chiefs personally warned David Cameron that helping to topple Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi was not in Britain’s national interest, it emerged yesterday.
Lord Richards, the former chief of the defence staff, said he was ‘always doubtful’ about whether UK forces should get involved in regime change in Libya in 2011.
He revealed that the then head of MI6, John Sawers, had also warned Mr Cameron against the disastrous military adventure which has plunged Libya into chaos. Despite the warnings, the then prime minister pressed ahead with the war, which MPs yesterday said had fuelled the migrant crisis and helped the rise of Islamic State in North Africa.
Lord Richards called for a shake-up of the Government’s National Security Council (NSC) to ensure prime ministers are forced to undertake a ‘more rigorous’ analysis of the risks before over-ruling their military advisers and rushing to war.
In a report yesterday, the cross-party foreign affairs committee said the ‘ill- conceived’ war had been based on ‘erroneous assumptions’ and faulty intelligence.
Lord Richards revealed he had raised concerns with Mr Cameron directly about the ‘very hazy’ intelligence and lack of post-conflict planning – and questioned the prime minister’s view that toppling Gaddafi was in Britain’s interests.
He told the BBC he had been branded ‘unhelpful’ by Downing Street for raising his concerns during NSC meetings in the run-up to war.
‘Whether it was in our vital national interest to intervene, I think is a matter for debate,’ he said. ‘I always was doubtful, and one or two of my colleagues – John Sawers – also shared that doubt. The issue isn’t the military campaign, it’s what we failed to do after that, and during, in terms of setting up for the peace. The issue is: was there a strong case for regime change?’
He added: ‘I was seen to be unhelpful, but in a way that was my job – to make sure my politi- cal masters had thought through all the implications.’
The revelation that Mr Cameron ignored the concerns of his military and spy chiefs will raise further concerns about his decision to intervene in Libya’s civil war in March 2011.
Mr Cameron said the intervention was vital to prevent Gaddafi carrying out a massacre of civilians in the eastern city of Benghazi. But Crispin Blunt, Tory chairman of the foreign affairs committee, yesterday said the threat to civilians had been ‘grossly overstated’. He said ministers should have considered other options after an initial bombing campaign
‘I was seen to be unhelpful’
forced Gaddafi to retreat 40 miles from the city. Instead, the UK’s military strategy ‘drifted into an opportunistic policy of regime change’.
MPs warned this week that ministers had failed to understand that the rebels they were supporting were heavily infiltrated by Islamist extremists.
The committee’s report concluded: ‘By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gadd- afi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, intermilitia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Islamic State in North Africa. Through his decision making in the NSC, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.’
Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood yesterday said that it was for politicians and not military officers to make decisions on the national interest.
He told the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee: ‘The prime minister in a democracy has to be – providing he or she can take their Cabinet with them – the judge of the national interest. The Chief of Defence Staff doesn’t decide what is in the national interest.’
Former Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt defended Mr Cameron, saying: ‘If you want to look at a situation where a dictator stays in place, and is able to remain in place and conduct war against his people, you can look at Syria.’
Downing Street yesterday defended the Libyan intervention, saying it had been carried out ‘alongside the international community in response to calls from the Arab League and was backed by Parliament’.
Comment – Page 16