Stardate 20021122.1201

(On Screen): I don't think that the US intends to use Iraqi anti-aircraft activity as a provocation, and I don't think that the US slipped one by in that case. But the other nations who participated in the UN Security Council resolution process and spent the entire time doing their best to try to prevent any possibility of war in Iraq are beginning to wake up to the fact that the US did indeed slip another one by them.

What France and Russia and certain others tried to do was to set up the UN inspectors as gatekeepers on war. When it became clear that the "two-resolution" concept was dead (about fifteen minutes after the polls in the US closed early in November) so that the UNSC itself would not be the gatekeeper, then their other plan was to make it so that any "material breach" had to be officially announced by the inspectors and reported to the Security Council. That's open to debate based on the wording of the resolution, but the French shoved all their chips onto Dr. Blix's shoulders and bet the farm that he's a pussy who will not provoke any major Iraqi defiance and won't report minor defiance.

The problem with that idea is, of course, December 8. That's when Iraq is required to produce a report which identifies a long laundry list of banned items, and it's certain that it's going to be full of blatant lies. Once that occurs, that alone will be a "material breach" and at that point the resolution could be cited as justification for war.

Those who care about nothing except keeping us from attacking have wakened to this peril, because it means that there's a gaping hole in the fence right next to Blix's gate. And they're backing-and-filling now, to try to fill it. It isn't going to work.

The new theory is that even if the report is wrong, the inspectors will have to confirm that it's wrong before it becomes a "material breach".

However, several Western Security Council members, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said discrepancies by Iraq in the declaration, by themselves, would not be enough to trigger war according to the resolution.

"In practical political terms, if you have an inadequate, unsatisfactory declaration, for that to become the view of the majority of council members, there has to be input from the inspectors and not just the say-so of the United States and the United Kingdom," one key envoy said.

So far, Iraq has said it has no dangerous weapons. Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, in a letter last week accepting the council's Nov. 8 resolution, wrote that Iraq was not developing weapons "whether nuclear, chemical or biological as claimed by evil people."

Resolution 1441, sponsored by the United States and Britain, says that "false statement or omissions" in the declarations plus any other failure by Iraq to comply fully would constitute "a further material breach."

The same paragraph 4 says the inspectors have to report any breach to the council, which would then discuss it before Washington could take any military action.

Exactly what would trigger an attack or how many strikes Iraq has is not clear. "That's politics," another envoy said.

The wording of paragraph 4, and its interpretation, has always been the critical question. It says that violations of the agreement are material breaches, and that the inspectors will report them to the UNSC for further action.

But since we do not need further UNSC action to attack, and since the violations are material breaches immediately even before they're reported, then the reading of this by "one key envoy" is nonsense.

This entire process has been one big exercise in attempting to create bureaucratic barriers to war. The US can't maintain readiness in the region indefinitely, and if bureaucratic barriers can be made to persist long enough (about a year) then we'd have to stand down, or so they hope.

But they're continuing to ignore the reality of the situation. Bush has three choices, just like he always has: work with the UN, let the UN impede him, or ignore the UN and attack anyway. Too much bureaucratic horseshit won't impede him; what it will do is to cause him to ignore the UN. And that will hurt the UN a lot more than it hurts us.

I had hoped that certain people in Europe would have become realistic in the aftermath of the American election, and realized that war in the middle east is now a foregone conclusion. But I guess I was wrong; they prefer to cling to their delusion of centrality rather than admit their irrelevance.

"Another envoy" indeed has the right answer: politics will decide what will trigger an attack. But it won't be European politics. Politics has already decided what will trigger an attack, and it was politics here. When Congress authorized war without requiring UN approval, and when the Republicans won the election, that sealed it. There will be war.