45 Minutes

Did Tony Blair ever actually state that Saddam had WMDs which could be launched in 45 minutes? This has become part of the general mythology of the anti-war left; cast doubt on this at your peril, as the sneers drown you out: “Of course he did – that was how he persuaded Parliament to back him. All lies of course….”

Look at the parliamentary record on Blair’s speech back in September 2002 when he was introducing the government’s dossier on Iraq’s WMD programme (via Tim Blair):

It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population …

So the dossier states, yes, that Saddam had WMDs, and further that he had plans for WMDs capable of activation within 45 minutes.

Of course there’s still a problem with the WMDs. Where are they: in Syria?…or a fantasy in Saddam’s head? But this idea that Tony Blair claimed that WMDs capable of being launched in 45 minutes were in place at the time, and against the West, is not true.

Comments

  1. Jurjen Avatar

    5 minutes’ notice.
    A hypothetical example would be a 120mm mortar unit stationed in or near Basra, with a (small) stockpile of 120mm bombs loaded with a CW agent (such as mustard gas) securely locked away at an ammunition storage facility nearby. Upon receiving instructions through the appropriate chain of command, the unit would be able to retrieve its mortars from the armoury, retrieve (under the supervision of a politically reliable officer) the CW munitions, and have its armament set up, laid and ready to fire 45 minutes after receiving the order.
    I think that would have been a pretty plausible scenario at this time last year.

  2. John Kozak Avatar
    John Kozak

    You quote Blair as saying that SH had “plans for the use of” CBW. Note the “for the use of” – so this doesn’t mean these “plans” are design design documents for weapon systems, but a military strategy for the deployment of such weapons: Blair is trying to create the impression of actual, not possible weapons.
    How can you misunderstand something so straightforward?

  3. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    I don’t see that I’m misunderstanding. “Plans for the use of…” doesn’t imply they’re already there.

  4. John Kozak Avatar
    John Kozak

    “active and existing military plans for the use of” certainly does imply the prior existence of the CBW. An active military plan to use a non-existing weapon system isn’t a military strategy, it’s one of Baldrick’s Cunning Plans.

  5. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    What can I say? “We have active and existing military plans for deploying artillery along this border”, doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve already got this artillery.

  6. John Kozak Avatar
    John Kozak

    An “active plan” is one which can be put into operation as desired, including immediately: therefore it implies the existence of its prerequisites.

  7. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    That’s an entirely arbitrary definition of “active plan”. I would have thought an active plan was a plan that was, um, active. I think we should just agree to disagree.

  8. John Kozak Avatar
    John Kozak

    It’s not arbitrary: it follows from the nature of things military, and that such things don’t necessarily happen at a time of one’s choosing. If your “active plan” against being nuked is to take to a bunker, and that bunker doesn’t exist when actually nuked, you’ll make a very embarrassed-looking white silhouette.
    Amateur linguistics hat on: I think that hardly anyone who hadn’t been immersing themselves in Bushite WMD-programme-related-activity theology would come up with your intpretation of that chunk of Blair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *