[mack]

I have resigned myself to the fact that we will go to war with Iraq. At this point, in my view, whatever the arguments were pro or con before this all started, the US is now committed, because if we were to fail to follow through it would send a green light to all the would be terrorists and third world dictators that the US is a paper tiger. Therefore the damage of not following through will be now certainly be greater than doing nothing.

Which brings me to the primary subject of my post, Tony Blair the British PM. Blair put it on the line early on by supporting Bush despite heavy opposition within his own party and from the general public. However, because of that opposition he pressured Bush to offer another resolution at the UN in order to use it as political cover. Now support in England and in the UN has further eroded as France is winning the PR war in Europe and England and in the UN. Therefore Blair is now pressuring Bush to postpone the vote in the UN and to push back the deadline of the 17th for Saddam to fully comply. Further it now is reported that the new resolution will offer a set of specific benchmarks for Saddam to comply with within a new extended time frame - which is a significant step back from the requirement that he simply comply fully and completely.

So, how long will Bush postpone any action, primarily to provide Blair political cover? It seems the longer action is postponed and the diplomatic intrigue at the UN continues to drag on, the more support is lost and the more isolated the US becomes.

[Blackhawk]

Thinking strategically and tactically, there is no benefit to the U.S. having popular support for the war among the French, Germans, Belgians, or any other country which isn't going to or can't help us prosecute the war.

Meanwhile, many chickens are coming home to roost revealing the pathetic comedy of duplicity of our so called allies.

During the interim, the delays have solidified our intel, our logistics, our targeting, and our positioning.

The delays, IMO, have thus far worked to our benefit, but I also think it's very close to the time to execute the mission.

We may look back on this and thank our lucky stars that we're rid of Saddam, the UN, and a host of other vexing problems. :D

[trapshooter]

I really think the holdup right now is the resolution of the Turkish end of things. That's why those ships haven't headed to the Gulf already. It will happen. Once those forces are in position, then it's only a matter of faking the Iraqi's out of thier socks on the close timing, assuming we care too much about tactical surprise, which may not be the case. (I think it's fairly obvious that 'strategic' surprise is not a logical objective, at this point.:D )

[moa]

This may be a good outcome concerning Tony Blair. He is a Clinton clone and friend, disciple of the "third way". His government is the architect of the latest series of the harsh British gun control laws.

The Iraq issue may cause Blair's resignation, or bring down his government, or both. Good.

As for the troops and ships the Brits are providing, I understand that they were mostly planned to be a reserve force.

They may come in handy keeping the post-war peace.

[Monkeyleg]

Moa, I've never been a big fan of Blair, but if he's turned out of office it's unlikely that he'll be replaced by a conservative. If his support for Bush and the Iraqi war are cause for him to be removed, he'll be replaced by a more liberal and pacifist candidate.

[Gary H]

I suspect that Blair is the most conservative PM that we will see in Britain for some time. His removal under these circumstances would not be good. He is not Clinton. The guy does have some backbone and is probably a much more moral man. He is overly liberal to my way of thinking, but he beats what comes next.

[SteelyDan]

moa, I too have to respectfully disagree. My perception is that Blair has fully "stepped up to the plate," but that he faces domestic political and constitutional issues that are beyond his control. I think it is in our best interest to strengthen his position, not to weaken it or him.

[fallingblock]

The whole of the Labour Party in Britain is anti-gun.:barf:

Having conceeded that point, what Blair is doing has the potential to (depending on the success of U.S. action in removing Hussein) disable the left wing of Labour and silence the Tories in one swipe. The man may be a liberal blissninny with some of his policies, but he is a real politician. I suspect he miscalculated the level of anti-war sentiment the 'Old Europeans', British Left and his own media were able to whip up on short notice.

If he goes, the next one will be worse:rolleyes:

[Mk VII]

Personally I'm going to enjoy watching Blair wriggling on this hook. He is now caught in a trap of his own devising. He cannot pull back from participation in the war now without catastrophic loss of prestige in Washington and considerable disruption to military operations. Yet he does not command the support of his party or the country. Privately many Labour MP's are instinctively anti-American and see no reason why they should pretend to be happy to endorse participation in Dubya's War. A quick and fairly bloodless victory may keep them quiet. If the war goes badly - by which I don't military defeat, which seems unlikely, but anything more than negligible British casualties particularly blue-on-blue incidents - then they will oust Blair and install someone more to their liking regardless of whether the nation is at war. It happened to Margaret Thatcher, albeit for very different reasons.
Here, one sees parallels with the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson pleaded with Prime Minister Harold Wilson for even a token British contingent for Vietnam. Wilson was too experienced a political operator to fall into that trap, the Left of his party would have disowned him. As it was he came under heavy pressure for his refusal to condemn the war in Vietnam.

[Hal]

On 9/11 I watched W address the nation.
On 9/11 I saw Blair featured prominently on stage with W.

On 9/11 all I could think was the old axiom.

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Is Blair a friend or an enemy?

or both?

He was always a bit too subserviant to Clinton for my liking.

[Mk VII]

Blair is Clinton Lite.

[moa]

Some of the previously remarks remind me of the fate of Winston Churchill, Britian's WWII Prime Minster. He was voted out of office after winning the war. Shows you the strange happenings in British politics. Then he was re-elected in 1951. Go figure.

[Joe Gunns]

Think Blackhawk has got it right, although I am not as sanguine about all the benefits he names (out of UN, various and sundry vexing problems) actually acrueing.

Hope that whatever shifts the Bu****es make to accommodate Blair's needs are not a expense of ability to prosecute war.

Regardless of Blair, it seems to me it's about time to poop or get off the pot.