LONDON BRIEFING: Attitudes towards potential war with Iraq vary across countries and the differences that arise are pretty much as we would expect, with one or two surprises. In Europe, Gerhard Schröder's recent election victory was secured partly on an anti-war ticket.
German attitudes - which are widely reflected around Europe - tend to focus on the idea that the US is embarked on pure adventurism if not outright war mongering. Hard evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea and the (so far) non-existence of such evidence in Iraq merely confirms the view of many Europeans that the US is determined to wage war in Iraq with or without evidence of breaches of UN resolutions.
In the US there is, understandably, the largely unquestioning support of the White House. But there are a few exceptions to this. Tom Friedman, a leading Pulitzer Prize winning commentator on the Middle East, has expressed the "liberal" view most clearly. He argues that Mr Bush is going to oust Saddam purely to help secure future oil supplies from the Gulf.
Mr Friedman goes on to argue - and this is what surprises many Europeans - that Mr Bush will be right to wage war for these reasons; securing the future of the global economy, not just that of the US, is a legitimate reason for getting rid of Saddam. The alternative is to imagine a vicious lunatic gaining influence or even control over much of the Arab world. Mr Friedman acknowledges that much of this will not wash with the rest of the world.
It will be seen as the US fighting for its rights to drive gas-guzzlers. Hence, he goes on to argue that Mr Bush can no longer flout demands for energy conservation and ignore Kyoto-type accords. Iraq's oil should not simply be handed over to US firms.
If this is liberal America's perspective we can only imagine what the mainstream must think. And it does not take much imagination to appreciate just how much hostility there is in Europe to all of this. The economic imperative of oil does not really cut it as an argument. It probably doesn't cut much ice with the broader American public either, which is why Mr Friedman is to be congratulated for highlighting facts that the administration would prefer to keep under wraps. Here in the UK most people are simply puzzled. Tony Blair's unwavering support for Bush is in keeping with a long tradition and many of us want to take him at his word that US and British intelligence know of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
The puzzlement arises from a simple question. Why don't those same intelligence services simply tell the UN weapons inspectors where to look? There has been an answer of sorts to this question, at least one that has been fed into the British media. The intelligence world does not want to reveal its sources, apparently, and does not want to tip Saddam off such that he starts to move the stuff around. They want the weapons to stay where they are so they can bomb them when the war starts.
Few of us find much reassurance in any of this. The explanations simply do not add up. Indeed, they verge on the patronising. We want to trust Tony Blair on this one, but he is not giving us enough information.
Many of us are even reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt. The doubts are simply too big. But war looms ever more likely and probably sooner rather than later. Apparently, modern tanks and helicopters cannot cope with desert heat after April.
Mr Blair is acutely aware of all this. He knows that doubts over the Iraqi adventure are contributing to a marked deterioration in his personal poll ratings. And this could not have come at a worse moment. The biggest issue facing Britain this year is not Iraq but the euro. Or at least it will be the euro if a referendum is called.
The Treasury has to decide on the economic case for or against Britain joining. Mr Blair has already pronounced, in his New Year message, that the political case for membership is overwhelming and obvious. That came as news to many of us, but is largely academic as the Treasury will decide on the prime minister's "question of destiny."
And the omens are not good, at least for Mr Blair. Two factors are working against him. First, any neutral economist would conclude that the economic case for participating in the euro is, at best, unproven. And most economists would agree this will always be the case. Second, the weakening of Mr Blair's personal standing will merely embolden his heir apparent, Gordon Brown, to do anything he can to damage the prime minister's further.
Chris Johns is chief strategist at ABN AMRO Securities, London. All opinions expressed are entirely personal.
