Stardate 20021118.0909

(Captain's log): Alaisdair writes again, to react to my response to his earlier letter.

I agree that Dec 8th is the next key date in this unfolding drama. If, (as expected), Saddam announces that he has no WMD's, then it will be up to the British and American intelligence agencies to provide the UN inspectors with information about where to go and what to look out for. I also agree that without the assistance of the intelligence agencies, the likelihood of the UN inspectors discovering anything significant within the UNSC resolution time frame is low.

So once Saddam declares that he is "clean", will the intelligence agencies go to the White House with their evidence and allow Bush to tell the world that Saddam is in material breach, (with all the supporting documentation provided), or will they go to the UN inspectors and tell them where to dig, or will they do both? Regardless, we are placing an awful lot of faith in the accuracy of the intelligence reports. If the intelligence is not top-notch, then either Bush or the UN inspectors will look foolish and impotent. One false declaration by the President will give anti-Bush journalists all the evidence that they need to skewer Bush and destroy his credibility.

When I read this I had one of those "what is he talking about?" reactions. Then I looked at the header of the message and discovered that he was writing from Sweden, and quite naturally takes a European view of things.

Some journalists will bitch and moan no matter what Bush does, and do their best to skewer him. But it won't destroy his credibility; they're not that powerful. And even if his credibility is damaged short term, he has plenty of time to rebuild it before it matters again (i.e. before the 2004 elections). By then the war will have been fought and won, and there will have been plenty of time for our people on the ground to actually locate things which will more than justify the action retroactively. The short term griping and criticism won't ultimately matter, and Bush doesn't worry about his ratings on a week-to-week basis. He takes the long view.

Remember, we don't have a parliamentary system. Bush doesn't face a "vote of no confidence".

Our intelligence agencies have already given the UN inspectors lists of places to look, but after December 8 I don't expect any attempt to try to get the inspectors to locate and provide evidence of breach to justify action. And while I also expect that some intelligence information regarding Iraqi WMD programs (and their continued existence) will be released, I don't expect Bush to even make an attempt to provide anything remotely like the kind of convincing case that Alasdair seems to think is required.

What we have here is failure to communicate. Alasdair thinks Bush needs to convince the world (i.e. continental Europe) in order to truly satisfy the terms of the UNSC resolution, since the purpose of war is to back up the UN. I think Bush doesn't need to convince anyone; he did all his convincing in October when he convinced Congress to pass a resolution authorizing war in Iraq, without having Congress attach any kind of baroque requirements to it.

The reality is that the UNSC resolution wasn't actually needed and still isn't very important. It's handy, but it's not worth making major sacrifices for, and definitely not something whose terms will actually restrict action. If the only way Bush can accomplish what he thinks he needs to is to kiss off the UN entirely, he'll do it.

I have been reading on Glenn Reynolds site (and others) about problems within the intelligence community with regards to setting up the Homeland Defence office, with sharing information between departments, and with a burdensome political bureaucracy that prevents real investigations from taking place. If these reports about fumbling within the intelligence community are true, then how can we be sure that our intelligence about Iraq is accurate and reliable?

It is undoubtedly true that Saddam has weapons that are in violation of UN resolutions. But in order to prosecute the war it will be required to demonstrate conclusively to the American people and Congress that this is the case. Bush's credibility is staked on this. War is also a PR battle, and if you lose the PR battle then you will lose the motivation to see the war through. If our intelligence isn't as good as we'd like to think it is, then we run the risk of losing the war before it ever really starts.

What is your assessment of the current state of American and British foreign intelligence services? And how much faith do you have in our intelligence services being able to accurately pinpoint instances of violation of UN resolutions within Iraq? Because whether or not the rest of the world agrees with the actions taken by the US and the UK, it will still be necessary to provide accurate evidence to the American people.

Yes, there are PR aspects to this war, as there are for any war. But I think that Alasdair is projecting European sensibilities onto American voters, and assuming that people here are concerned about the same kinds of things that people there are. I see no reason to agree with that.

I don't think that the majority of Americans who support war in Iraq think we're going to be fighting there primarily to support the UN. Most of us think we're going to fight because Saddam is a vicious and dangerous son-of-a-bitch who ha