Quote:
Originally posted by SagaLout
As soon as the intelligence is revealed publically the source is compromised, leading to
a) a dead source or one that has to be pulled out pretty bloody quick
b) no further intelligence
Thats what I meant by you have to trust the people that do see the intelligence. Thats the dilemma. I think I do trust Blair to do the right thing, but I'm far from convinced of the US administration, and they're probably the ones passing the info to Blair.
|
Given that the evidence of said intelligence agent will likely tip the balance in favour of war, why is there the need to think in terms of keeping them 'in place'?
Surely after a conflict the entire political landscape of Iraq is going to change, so intelligence agents in place now will be redundant post-war.
I can see no good reason to withold any decisive intelligence at this stage of the process.
Pull them out*, let them tell their story then have a war where the coalition and their countrymen are unified and clear about the idea that they're doing the right thing.
Given that the above idea is so bleedin' obvious, I can easily assume that none such intelligence exists.
* Pull them out, leave them in, let them die. It's all the same to me.
If one informant/intelligence agent dies in the name of providing clear and irrefutable evidence that war is justified (which means we can conduct the war effort efficiently and effectively thus reducing the greater bloodshed) then so be it.