Admiral Lord Boyce, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, said he was only allowed by ministers to start full-scale planning four months before the invasion - far less time than they really needed.
He confirmed that the timelines were so tight, the 7th Armoured Brigade "Desert Rats" - the lead British formation - did not achieve full operational capability until the day before British and US troops went into Iraq on March 20 2003.
Lord Boyce also described how he had demanded assurances from Prime Minister Tony Blair that the military action was legal.
And he was scathing about the lack of preparations for dealing with post war Iraq both by the Department for International Development and the Americans.
Lord Boyce said that at the time of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 there had been "absolutely no contingency planning" by the British for military action against Iraq.
Preparations within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were "ramped up" after Mr Blair visited president George Bush at his Texas ranch in April 2002, although they were restricted to a small group of senior officers.
Lord Boyce said ministers had been concerned that details would leak out, undermining their efforts to get a new United Nations Security Council resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
The issue was considered so sensitive that Lord Boyce said he was even ordered by the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, not to discuss it with the chief of defence logistics.
"I was prevented from doing that by the Secretary of State for Defence because of the concern of it becoming public knowledge that we were planning for a military contribution which might be unhelpful in the activity in the UN to secure a Security Council resolution," he said.
As a result, the military chiefs were unable to take any practical steps to prepare for military action, such as buying in the extra equipment they would need for the operation.
"All you would be doing was high level planning, saying this is what we could do when we got the go ahead to start bringing in people like the Defence Logistics Organisation," Lord Boyce said.
The MoD was only finally given the authorisation to begin "overt" planning in November 2002, following the passing of Security Council resolution 1441 requiring Saddam to disarm.
"The late stage at which I was finally given authority to start mobilising the logistics organisation to get the equipment that we needed left us with some very short timelines," he said.
In the end, he said that he was confident that the troops who were at "the front of the frontline" had the equipment they needed when the invasion began.
But pressed about the concerns raised by families of some the soldiers killed in action, he said: "I'm not familiar with the detail about things such as body armour. The unfortunate thing about going to war is that some people are going to get killed."
Lord Boyce said he had made clear to Mr Blair as early as January 2002 that he would need proper legal authorisation if he was to commit British forces to an invasion.
Eventually he was given a certificate by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, although he indicated that he would have preferred a second Security Council resolution authorising military action which would have "completely nailed" it.
"Obviously the propriety or legality of what we were about to do was obviously a concern of mine - not least because, somewhat against my instincts, we had signed up to the ICC (International Criminal Court)," he said.
"I always made perfectly clear to the Prime Minister face-to-face - and indeed to the Cabinet - that if we decided to go into Iraq we would have to have a good legal basis for doing so, which obviously a second resolution would have completely nailed."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald 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 hereComments are closed on this article