Giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London, John Jenkins said that the establishment of democracy was not a “done deal”.
He said that the presence in the Iraqi Army of many senior officers with a background in Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party continued to represent a “risk”.
Nevertheless, he insisted that the current situation in the country was much better than had appeared likely in the years immediately following the invasion of 2003, when it descended into violence.
“If you look at the history of Iraq, the history of military coups in Iraq, you have to think that that is always a possibility – a real possibility – in the future.
“But I think where we are at the moment is much better than we thought it was going to be back in 2004/05.”
He said that there was a widespread belief in Iraq that Baathist elements were behind recent bomb attacks in the country.
“There is clearly a balance to be drawn between using the professional competence and experience of former army officers under Saddam to provide the backbone of the modern Iraqi security forces and dealing with the suspicions and fears of others that this is the reintroduction of irreconcilable elements of the Baath Party,” he said.
The inquiry was also told that plans were drawn up for an emergency pull-out of British troops last year amid fears that the legal basis for their presence could collapse.
Peter Watkins, director of operational policy at the Ministry of Defence, said there had been concerns that negotiations with the Iraqi Government would not be completed in time.
An agreement was only finalised on December 23 after progress was held up by the protracted discussions between the Iraqis and the Americans.
The inquiry was adjourned until Monday.
Why are you making commenting on HeraldScotland only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereCommments are closed on this article