Downing Street Memo: But Wait, There's More!

Another British gov't leak: This time, it's a "Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action." (The Times' analysis of the document is here.) While it lacks the zing of a place-name, it does have some text that certain powerful people probably won't like getting out. It's a long document, which confirms and expands on what's said in the Downing Street Meeting Minutes (or Memo). The document is too long to quote in full but a few paragraphs concerning timing and justification are revealing, esp. in view of the looming US elections in 2003, the Niger yellowcake forgeries and the Times' reporting on the uptick of bombing in the fall summer of 2002:

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

Must be nice living in Britain, where they apparently have a functioning national media. Note to USA Today's Jim Cox: Are you guys going to keep carrying water for Bush or are you going to do your job?

BONUS LINKS:

• Document
Analysis
• Hot Blog-on-Blog Action
• The Times: The Washington Press Corpse on the Downing Street Memo (note: the Times is calling this "memogate," apparently unaware that the name was used as a synonym for "Rathergate"
• The Washington Post reports on the memo again, this time in the context of Bush™ lacking full post-war plans for Iraq (that's putting it charitably)

(Via Shakespeare's Sister. Lesson: never leave your RSS-feeder off overnight.)