Government put troops at risk, says report

• Defence committee report criticises government preparations for Iraq war

• Conclusions embarrass government after prior denials of problems

• Report coincides with US senate leak that CIA used 'shaky intelligence'

Key report findings

• British Soldiers unprepared for chemical or biological attacks

• Lack of adequate planning for post-war Iraq

• Soldiers ordered into action without support of most of main battle tanks

• Armed forces not large enough to deal with current operational demands

Key quote

"The fact that this operation was a notable military success should not blind us to the to the very real difficulties that which our armed forces had to cope with in terms of hurried deployment, inadequate supplies and a lack of time for proper in-theatre training" – Bruce George, Chairman of defence committee

Story in full A DAMNING report into the government’s handling of the war in Iraq reveals that a more capable enemy could have exposed serious weaknesses in the state of Britain’s armed forces and blames political meddling for undermining the military’s ability to do its job.

The investigation, by the Commons defence committee, is highly critical of the level of preparations to face a chemical or biological attack and reveals that British troops were ordered into action without the support of most of their main battle-tanks, which had not been made ready in time.

Publication of the findings coincides with the leak of a confidential report by the United States Senate intelligence committee which concluded the CIA exaggerated "shaky intelligence" about the threat posed by Iraq in the run-up to war.

The US report found that vague details about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were turned into firm warnings, while unreliable sources were taken at their word.

Today’s publication of the defence committee report will be highly embarrassing for the government, which has insisted that British troops were well-equipped and ready for action when they went over the border into Iraq this time last year.

While the report concludes British forces proved once again that they are among the best in the world, it argues that they were placed under unnecessary pressure and were stretched close to their limits by the government’s decision to allow political considerations to outweigh the needs of the military in the build-up to war.

The report confirms the concerns voiced by the commanding officer of the Black Watch regiment in The Scotsman in January, when he criticised the failure to equip soldiers properly to face Iraq’s much-vaunted chemical and biological threat and blamed the shortage of equipment on political procrastination.

At the time, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, was adamant troops did have adequate supplies of protective nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. Today’s report, however, contradicts that position.

Among the key findings of the 213-page report were:

• The armed forces are not large enough to tackle the current operational demands placed upon them "without serious risk of damage to their widely admired professional standards".

• The Desert Rats’ two main heavy-armoured battlegroups, the Scots Dragoon Guards and 2 Royal Tank Regiment - which, between them, included the majority of the brigade’s main battle tanks - were not ready for action by the time the war started.

• If the Iraqis had used chemical weapons, the operational consequences would have been severe. The lack of chemical and biological filters for armoured vehicles was described as "a matter of the utmost seriousness" and the committee concluded that British troops were lucky not to suffer as a consequence of equipment shortages.

• The committee believed that military personnel serving on operations should be able to have complete and justified confidence that chemical warfare attacks would be detected in time, that their individual protection equipment would save their lives and that operational success would not be imperilled.

• A more capable enemy could have exposed "serious weaknesses in the preparedness and resilience of UK forces".

• The limited time available to the military to prepare to deploy troops and equipment was in part because of "parallel political processes" and led to equipment shortages, and may have affected some areas of combat effectiveness. There were marked problems in logistics, communication, intelligence, planning and co-ordination with the US.

• Regarding military action as part of a much larger political strategy may further complicate the role of the armed forces, who are already operating in increasingly complex situations and under intrusive scrutiny.

• There was a lack of adequate planning for the situation in post-conflict Iraq, which limited the effectiveness of UK troops and squandered Iraqi goodwill.

• And despite the assurances of Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, that problems with the issue of boots, uniforms, ammunition and body armour were isolated incidents, there were widespread supply problems which had a serious effect on morale.

Bruce George, the chairman of the defence committee, urged the government and the Ministry of Defence to take action to address the problems identified.

"The fact that this operation was a military success should not blind us to the very real difficulties which our armed forces had to cope with in terms of hurried deployment, inadequate supplies and a lack of time for proper in-theatre training," he said.

"Our troops showed themselves to be equal to the best in the world. They displayed outstanding courage, professionalism and resourcefulness. But they must have complete confidence that everything is being done at higher levels to enable them to discharge their duties effectively."

Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said: "It is clear that this came about because of the government’s political indecision and avoidable delays in the ordering of equipment."

Meanwhile, in the US, a report by the Senate intelligence committee was reported to have concluded the CIA must improve both its human and electronic intelligence-gathering methods.

"The picture in regard to intelligence is not very flattering," said Senator Pat Roberts, the committee chairman.