Blair worries me. He must be aware that if this goes wrong, he will be finished politically. The same, I suppose, could be said of Bush.

The possibilities for it to go wrong are legion, and there is a high probability that a bungled military campaign, whether or not followed by an insensitive or corrupt transfer of power within Iraq, will further destabilise an already unstable region.

I was talking with an acquaintance of mine, a senior RAF officer who is about to be transferred to the war zone (assuming he can get any further than Cyprus, which many of our planes hadn't at the time of our conversation!). He said that, apart from the equipment and logistics issues, the thing that bothers most of the senior military is that there is not a clear end game. OK, so Saddam gets ousted, then what? Is there an open-ended commitment to suppress the Kurds, any residual Ba'athists, the southern Shi'ite population into accepting an imposed solution which may not satisfy their needs or political aspirations?

As a lifelong subscriber to the cockup theory of history, I see plenty of trouble ahead if, as seems inevitable, the military option is actioned. Iraq is not a stable state (after all, Britain created it out of a few contiguous but not particularly compatible parts of the Ottoman Empire).

As for bribes to Blair - I gather it was announced today that only US contractors will be considered for the rebuilding phase.

He may be a liar, but I'll wager he's feeling vulnerable!

Alan