The Daily Telegraph has an article revealing the name of the Iraqi Colonel who appears to have been the source of the claim that WMDs could be deployed in Iraq on 45 minutes notice. He stands by his information, and believes the WMDs are still in Iraq. -- Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes By Con Coughlin (Filed: 07/12/2003) An Iraqi colonel who commanded a front-line unit during the build-up to the war in Iraq has revealed how he passed top secret information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the battlefield against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes. Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year. He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage". The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of Baghdad, were delivered to the army by the Fedayeen and were distributed to the front-line units under cover of darkness. In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government's controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes. "I am the one responsible for providing this information," said the colonel, who is now working as an adviser to Iraq's Governing Council. He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam's battlefield WMD capability was correct. "It is 100 per cent accurate," he said after reading the relevant passage. The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier. "Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour." Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon," he said. The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences." Col al-Dabbagh, who was recalled to Baghdad to work at Iraq's air defence headquarters during the war itself, believes that the WMD have been hidden at secret locations by the Fedayeen and are still in Iraq. "Only when Saddam is caught will people talk about these weapons," he said. During the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, said that the information contained in the intelligence dossier relating to the 45-minute claim had come from a single "established and reliable" source serving in the Iraqi armed forces. Privately British intelligence officers have claimed that they believe the original source was killed during the war. Dr Kelly killed himself last July after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC radio report claiming that the Labour Government had included the 45-minute claim against the wishes of MI6 to "sex up" the intelligence dossier. Col al-Dabbagh, who spied for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a London-based exile group, for several years before the war, said, however, that he provided several reports to British intelligence on Saddam's plans to deploy WMD from early 2002 onwards. The INA, which was made up of retired and serving Iraqi officers and Ba'ath party officials, is known to have enjoyed a close relationship with MI6 and America's Central Intelligence Agency. Dr Ayad Allawi, the head of the INA who is now a prominent member of the Governing Council in Baghdad, confirmed that he had passed Col al-Dabbagh's reports on Saddam's WMD to both British and American intelligence officers "sometime in the spring and summer of 2002". Apart from providing intelligence on Saddam's WMD programme, Col al-Dabbagh also provided details of Iraq's troop and air defence deployments before the war. Although he gave details of Iraq's battlefield WMD capability, he said that he had no knowledge of any plans by Saddam to use missiles to attack British bases in Cyprus and other Nato targets. In the build-up to the conflict, Tony Blair was criticised by intelligence officials for giving the impression that Saddam had developed ballistic missiles that could carry WMD warheads and hit targets such as Israel and Britain's military bases in Cyprus. But Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. "I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield." Col al-Dabbagh, who received two death threats from Saddam loyalists days after his interview with the Telegraph, said that he was willing to travel to London to give evidence to the Hutton inquiry. "I was there and I knew what Saddam was doing before the war," he said. An official close to the Hutton inquiry said: "What Mr Dabbagh has to say sounds very interesting and it is certainly new evidence that we will want to look at."
OK, so we have WMD "warheads" that are to be launched by hand-held RPG devices? This seems a bit off, no? Somehow, I don't think NORAD was quivering with fear. The article also never says what the WMD is... is it nuclear or chemical or biological? And, this guy is an advisor to the Governing Council but is just now coming forth with the info that he was the source for intel months ago? Sounds a bit wierd to me. Need more info on a number of issues here.
Definitely need more info, and there's a subsequent denial from some general who would not be named. the nypost also picks up the story in today's paper. i'm not commenting on the veracity of the report, just saying it's interesting, particulalrly coming from the telegraph which is not known for it's love of things bush and blair.
LOL, the Daily Torygraph? You've got to be kidding. I think you have your british tabloids mixed up, you must be thinking of the Guardian.
Yeah, that caught my eye as well. Thanks for the article, basso. Arguably, you could make a small-scale dirty nuclear "kabob" ) ) and stick it on a shoulder launcher like that, but that stretches the definition of WMD, unless it's now Weapons of Messy Deployment or Weapons of Minor Dismay or some such. I know less about chemical or biological possibilities, but I suppose a little kabob of biohazards could be launched and exploded over coalition forces, exposing (at most) hundreds of soldiers to anthrax or some such. It's interesting to note that these kabobs would be incredibly easy to dimantle, bury, or destroy, and they might be hard to classify by UN standards. I don't know the details of their classification schemes at all.
Blair is Labor, not Tory. the Tories were against the Iraq war for the most part, and regard Bush as a cowboy. The may be right-wing, but they're not pro Bush/Blair.
Sam, I'm sorry, but that post is kind of troll feeding. They didn't create this Iraqi military guy. Maybe he's full of crap or has been bought, but I think there's something more interesting than the journal of publication here.
No, I'm not saying the Telegraph is credible or not, but that its a right leaning tabloid, not a lefty one as basso seemed to imply. Anyway, they've run all sorts of pro-war 'scoops' like this before, so to say its out of character for them to do so is just not right.
Wasn't it you who attacked me for impugning the "mainstream" NYTimes' motives in a thread about Houston schools a few days ago? the Telegraph isn't mainstream?
Okay, but what about the issue: the colonel or what-have-you. And what about rimrocker's point or mine? Sorry, I just think it's an interesting topic.
This story was discredited the same day. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/08/1070732117387.html Doubts cast on Iraqi officer's WMD claims December 8, 2003 - 12:28PM Doubts have been cast on an Iraqi former colonel's claims that Saddam Hussein's front-line units were provided with rocket-propelled grenades armed with chemical or biological weapons for use against allied troops. Lt-Col al-Dabbagh's description of the "secret weapon" issued on the Iraqi dictator's orders appeared to back Tony Blair's claim that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to British interests. He told London's The Sunday Telegraph he commanded an air-defence unit in the western desert and claimed to be the source of the intelligence used by MI6 and the Prime Minister to bolster the case for war. He insisted the weapons of mass destruction could have been deployed in half an hour, faster than the 45 minutes made famous by the Government's controversial dossier on Iraq's WMD. He claimed they were not used because the bulk of the Iraqi army chose not to resist the allied advance. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences," he said. advertisement advertisement However, in Baghdad yesterday doubts were expressed about his version of events. His commanding officer said that he had no knowledge of his men being supplied with WMD warheads. A senior Iraqi general in charge of Iraq's air defences during the war, who was part of a committee that reported directly to Saddam on the supply and training of air defence units, said: "This lieutenant colonel wanted to scare the Western world." The general, who would not give his name, conceded that authority may have been bypassed but said the frontline troops he visited were in a shambolic state and were unlikely to have received any additional weapons. "We were very low on equipment," he said. "There certainly wasn't any talk of chemical warheads." Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, said: "The claim is that battlefield weapons of mass destruction were available. That's not what the Government told us at the time. The Government told us that WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes and that was a misleading claim."
i think it's one more piece of evidence that suggests this issue is still to be decided. Those that claim Iraq never had WMDs, or destroyed them all, or they deteriorated over the years and blew away in a sandstorm, are simply not credible. Whether or not Iraq could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes, we know they had them. The mystery continues to be what happened to them. Are they buried in the desert somewhere? did they ship them to syria, w/ or w/out assad's knowledge?
Are you referring to the NORAD that was magically, somehow not functioning on the morning of 9/11/01, forcing NORAD to go to "rely on" the FAA, thus supposedly delaying our reaction time to launch strike aircraft on the one day in the nation's history when we needed it.... Oh, wait. Wrong subject! My bad.
Not saying that at all. But to say they are no friend to Bush and Blair implies that they are a left wing source. You seem to have intentionally cited this in order to give your story more credence They are commonly associated with views sympathetic to the Conservative party, and have run all sorts of stories (think George Galloway) that were pro-war, or ostensibly pro-war, in the past. I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't implied that they were some sort of skeptical eye not prone to citing wild pro-war theories, when in fact the opposite is closer to the truth.
am i missing something here? Howard's attacking Blair for being more conservative in his estimate of how quickly WMDs could be deployed? as to the original claim being discredited, the general's comment doesn't surpirse me, although i wonder why he wouldn't be identified. he also acknowledges he may have been bypassed and out of the loop. we should all try and avoid jumping to conclusions on this issue. this is just one piece of evidence that suggests the Blair/Bush case may have been accurate, and it demonstrates that Blair didn't just conjure his 45 minute claim out of thin air.
Okay, so, if we could ever move beyond pissing about newspapers, here are the remaining questions for me at least. 1) Why won't the general give his name? 2) What motivation would the general have for telling lies? 3) What motivation would the colonel have for telling lies? 4) Are shoulder-launched *anything* classified as WMD's? My first guesses: 1) No idea why. Perhaps he is afraid of being targeted by whackos of either persuasion. 2) I don't see any motivation. Would he lie to protect the memory of Saddam, to protect himself from the wrath of the remaining Baathist whackos? Maybe, but that seems unlikely at this point. 3) Grandstanding? From a conspiratorial angle, someone could slip him a wad of cash and tell him what to say. 4) No. If they *are* considered WMD's, we need a new acronym.
I think your first three possibilities are possible, but as far as shoulder-fired WMDs being a misnomer, that's certainly not the case in for a battlefield weapon, and i think that's what makes them so dangerous. a cannister of Gas or Chemical agent could easily be fired from a rocket-launcher. remember the anthrax scare? all it took was a few envelopes.
i think that if a weapon is used on the battlefield it can't be a weapon of mass destruction, it must destroy an entire area and hurt troops and civilians indiscriminately. Thus, US tactical nuclear weapons fired from tanks or artillery are not considered WMDs. like many of you have pointed out, if its fired from a shoulder launcher and its used in a battlefield, it isnt a WMD. methinks a new definition needs to be clariffied to the world,
Let's see... a battlefield nuke would destroy an entire area (even if it is small in proportion to the big ICBMers) and certainly make it unihabitable for awhile. A battlefield nuke would also kill at least soldiers indiscriminantly. I, at least, would classify batlefield nukes as WMDs. I do think you're right in that there probably needs to be an agreed upon definition of WMDs, but this is, in many ways, a problem foisted upon us by the Bush Administration. Would the question have come up before Iraq or would we have all agreed that there had to some level of really bad juju associated with anything called a WMD?
just playing devil's advocate here, but under your scenario, do you think the use of battlefield nukes would be no big deal, just another big bomb? i think all chemical, bilogical, or nuclear weapons are classified as WMDs- there delivery method matters not, and if the destruction is localized it doesn't necessarily mean the name's a misnomer.
