Posted on 09/03/2002 10:35:28 PM PDT by MadIvan
There was never much question that Tony Blair would support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein if George Bush decided to move against Baghdad.
Yesterday's Sedgefield press conference removes any lingering doubt: the fact that Mr Blair felt confident enough to use the key phrase "regime change" suggests that Mr Bush has already made the decision to move against Saddam.
In particular, Mr Blair's readiness to publish his promised dossier on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction strongly implies that Washington has given the green light for war.
After the Prime Minister and the President conducted a lengthy telephone conversation last Thursday, they are evidently at one, both on strategy - to eliminate Saddam - and tactics - to use the United Nations as "a way of dealing with [Saddam's regime], not a way of avoiding dealing with it".
This is a shrewd diplomatic formula which makes it harder for Mr Blair's Labour opponents to criticise him, unless and until the UN route is exhausted.
By convention, the British prime minister has freedom of action in matters of foreign affairs and defence, always provided that he acts in concert with our principal ally, the United States, and, of course, that the war does not go disastrously wrong.
Suez, the last time that a military operation brought down a British prime minister, demonstrated that against resolute American opposition, unilateral action was impossible in a superpower era. The Falklands demonstrated the converse, that resistance to an aggressor was still feasible with American support.
The Gulf war and Kosovo reiterated the lesson that a prime minister armed with American support can carry public opinion even against strong resistance at home and abroad.
Mr Blair is well aware that his own party has grave doubts about declaring war on Iraq, that opinion polls indicate profound public scepticism, and that the rest of Europe opposes toppling Saddam. Yet it is not merely right, but imperative for him to swim against this tide.
The summer has been allowed to slip by without the Prime Minister making the case for regime change, as Iain Duncan Smith has pointed out. It is perilously late for both the Prime Minister and the President to engage in the public diplomacy that will be necessary. Mr Blair acknowledged this urgency when he admitted that "the debate has moved on".
In British politics, if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both belong to the war party, it will as a rule have the upper hand over the peace party, regardless of public opinion at the outset. That is the case now, and it will do Mr Blair no political harm to confront his opponents at the Labour Party conference from the position of strength conferred by his role as America's closest ally.
Mr Blair will demonstratively use his good offices to bring round the German and French leaders, thereby gaining prestige in Washington. If operations in Iraq are as swiftly successful as those in Kosovo and Afghanistan, though, all but the most loudly cooing doves will, however ungratefully, embrace regime change.
Without perhaps realising it, Tony Blair has now irrevocably linked his fortunes to those of George Bush: a more improbable and awkward partnership than those of Churchill and Roosevelt, Thatcher and Reagan or, indeed, Blair and Clinton.
Mr Blair defended Mr Bush yesterday, but he needs to do more to flush out and defeat what he rightly calls "just straightforward anti-Americanism" in Labour ranks. He should not suppose that yesterday's press conference was more than the opening shot in the bitter war of words that must now commence.
Regards, Ivan
Even rarer, he's a lefty with some common sense.
Both are promising release of further damning details in the very near future.
Just my humble opinion, but I think the plan is in place.
I think Blair also knows he'll lose more if he doesn't stand with us ..
Saddam and Bin Laden along with a few other arab nut cases are whacked out madmen who will stop at nothing to get what they want
Yes he is a welcome surprise
He startled me when he was talking to some Arab journalists and said, very forcefully, "No matter your opinion of America, there is NO EXCUSE for an attack like the one on the World Trade Centre!"
I was surprised but delighted.
Regards, Ivan
You really are picking a fight with the wrong person.
All your function has been here is just to throw out random words - statements like "The United Nations is more intelligent than the US Public". The United Nations is so inutterably stupid they made Quadaffi the head of its Human Rights Commission.
Now you throw out some random words and phrases about Blair, Britain, this war, in the hopes that it will stick. You impress no one. Your statements indicate you are not a serious person, nor do I take you seriously.
I fear, given your handle, you may be Norwegian, a place from where some of my blood flows. I am sure if you are, that you'll understand if I call you a domgjet.
Ivan
Bump!
I feel a little better about it though, knowing that you are there and don't seem to have the worries about it that I do.
Well it's really very simple - we're already engaged in Iraq in patrolling the No Fly Zone. We were with you in Afghanistan. Being fickle to a true friend is not something we do - I think the only war we sat out of yours since World War II is Vietnam.
Blair has a unique amount of power for a Prime Minister, and if he says we're going, then we will. And on this issue, I will back him all the way.
Regards, Ivan
I've been a proponent of the theory that if we go to war, it will inevitably be to decide who gets the contracts to pump the oil out of Iraq. If the UN makes a deal and lifts sanctions, then Sadam gets to decide who gets the contracts, and that would probably be the French and Russians. If the US institutes a "regime change", Vae Victis right? BP and Exxon-Mobil will be getting the contracts.
And nothing gets an economy going like the returning victorious troops.
I don't think Mr. Blair is particularly noble or brave, but I do think he's a survivor. I think he's made a bet about how this drama will play out, and by throwing his weight behind it, made it more likely.
And in the UK as in the US, nothing succeeds like success.
IMHO.
The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!
I noticed this, too. Now I would like to fill in with a grand conspiracy. We know that the US intelligentsia failed, and it's clear that Bush & Blair both know some serious nasty dirt on Saddam right now.
But if Tony thinks we bungled WTC badly, he probably is doubly directed to preempt Sodamn Insane before he releases hell.
Lilly livered libbys or not, the Brits do have a culture of honor that will drive them to do the right thing. I think Tony's at best wanting to catch up on the leadership bandwagon, and at worst, disgusted with the utter failure of Washington and waiting for us to get our sh!t together, powerless to fix things completely on his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.