Does Tony Blair know something we don't?

Great Debates
1

Anyone who has watched Blair’s ascendancy to Prime Minister must be aware of his pragmatic politics. His remodelling of the Labour party to abandon its socialist roots and fit an electorally viable model is a prime example of realpolitik.

And yet, faced with nearly 90% dissent amongst his own party’s backbench (survey respondents) regarding an attack on Iraq, around 71% dissent from the British public, and almost no support in the EU, it seems uncharacteristic of him to continually pursue a bellicose stance.

It might even lose him his position as PM, or seriously damage his party before the next election.

I’ve been trying to come up with motives for his support for a US-led attack on Iraq, and (disregarding the more conspiritorial flights of fancy) these are what I can think of:[ul][]Long-term fiscal and strategic benefits for the UK based on trade with US[]Personal moral imperative (he’s a Christian)[]Personal kudos[]Intelligence unknown to the public[/ul]Anyone have any better ideas?

2

Aargh…my beautifully crafted and very witty post got all ate up.

To try again…

I can’t see there being any other reasons other than the ones you list.
He is definitely taking the moral high ground, as he stated “This is not blind loyality, we are doing this as it is the right thing to do…”. In his opinion.

I think ‘keeping in’ with Europe and the Middle East would be as much of a proirity as 'keeping in’with the US.

The link you provided states “that British participation in an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new United Nations mandate…”.
I don’t see how Blair could proceed without following this (legal) path, even after producing the famous Dossier he kept mentioning.

My original post was much better :frowning:

3

How about this reason?

After five years of trimming, of saying rather than doing, of avoiding anything that might be misconstrued as decisive action for the good of the country rather than the good of the Labour party, Blair has realised that eventually he has to stand up for something. He has latched on to a US-lead policy, which means that he can bask in the glow of success or blame Bush if it all goes wrong. (if it does, I can see him now, mock sincerity, smiling sadly, apologetic, much hand waving, his gentle stutter to the fore, claiming that he advised against the course of action finally taken. Where’s the “puking on the floor” smiley when you need it?)

He has noticed that in a war, the public go with the government. He knows that both of his predecessors had “good” wars, which helped their re-election chances. Can’t beat a good war. This is as low a risk war (to him, not the poor sods who will have to fight it) as it can get.

In the OP’s terms, personal kudos.

4

So the implication is, in Go alien’s post, that an unpopular war will turn into a popular one (IMO) once the Sun-readers see ‘our boys’ headin into the desert. Is this likely?

“Concerned hair; scary eyes”.

5

I think Blair is running scared. He knows he’s not popular. He knows he has a reputation for changing direction whenever a pollster sneezes. I think he’s clutching desperately at the idea that winning wars makes leaders popular [cf Thatcher]. I also think he’s wrong in this case. It’s like picking on a bratty kid in the year below you to prove how hard you are.

6

Whether or not the war is supported by the people does depend a lot on how well it goes. If Blair supports an invasion, and we start to kick Iraq’s butt, then people who were against the war for logistical reasons will likely change their tune. A lot of the reason that the public in the US was so against the Vietnam war was because we were getting our asses handed to us, and no progress was seen as being made. Now there will be a lot of people in England (and the US) whose opposition to war is based on moral reasons, and they won’t change their minds.

I don’t know too much about general British philosophy wrt nationalism, but I know that in the US, people tend to unite behind war efforts. Patriotism and whatnot. I would guess this would play a role amongst people who are currently ambivalent to the idea of war.

My idea regarding the OP is that his position is primarily based on moral imperative and intelligence unknown to the public. Though I’m sure the idea of being a successful wartime PM doesn’t hurt. :slight_smile:
Jeff

7

FWIW, I think it’s the right course of action. The whole process could have been better managed, certainly more effort could have been made at the UN to get international support.

I am so distrustful of any politician that I tend to view any course of action they advocate in terms of “how can I manipulate events to get me re-elected?” Blair is the most shallow PM in my personal experience, including Harold Wilson. His Christianity is worn like a cloak of moral justification - how could anybody doubt his motives? He knowswhat’s best for us, trust him, don’t think for yourself, we are all in Saint Tony’s safe hands.

:::: sounds of prolonged vomiting ::::

8

We’re considerably less nationalistic, and far morce cynical, than our cousins across the pond. Having said that, there is a substantial right-wing majority (“Sun readers” - the lowest common denominator in tabloid opinion) who would support the troops. Currently, however, not even they seem keen.

9

this “war” has never had anything to do with “moral imperative”. It is about the oil. Britain in particular has almost completly exhausted what reserves it mght have had and its natural gas supplies can no longer keep up with peak demands. Britain is about to enter a serious energy shortage if they do not secure a steady price stabilized source. Natural gas in particular is becoming extremely important to the world and britain in particular. Oil lines have been proposed and construction started after huge investments from US and british petroleum companies only to be held up, rerouted, or stopped completly by tensions in the areas where these pipelines need to go. Jordan is on board primarily becasue the pipeline through iraq/jordan will mean a huge economic boost for them.

In short Europe and Britain need these pipelines. Europe is in less immediate demand and likely will find their supplies more stable as more comes from the caspian area, but Iraq, and afghanistan have access to the largest known oil reserves. Whoever controls those oil supplies will control the world economy for at least the next 30 years.

10

I’m as dumfounded as the OP, so I won’t go into the whys and whats of Blairist saber rattling. I can say this much though; this is not about oil.

Oil is the most internationalized commodity you’ll find. The actual origin of oil once it has been sucked out the bedrock matters very little. This is illustrated by the fact that many oil producing countries purchase oil at higher levels than they produce and export almost all of their production, this serves to level off the extraction cost variations, which are huge.

Hence statements like Rhapsody made; “Europe is in less immediate demand and likely will find their supplies more stable as more comes from the caspian area,” make no sense. On the other hand on the supply side it does make a difference how much you have to sell, thus saying; “Jordan is on board primarily becasue the pipeline through iraq/jordan will mean a huge economic boost for them,” might make some sense.

Oil is bought and sold per barrel and the price is settled on the commodity markets and it is universal. There are a few noteworthy exceptions such as the US direct purchase of oil from Saudi Arabia, which is an instrument in place to stifle inflation of the price per barrel, but the portion of oil traded in this manner is but a trifle of the global production.

Iraqi oil resources will certainly be important in the long run and they would have marginally positive effect on the price per barrel if freely available today. However, the pure financial costs of waging a full out war dwarfs the financial benefits thus achieved manifold.

So take that old false tune ‘It’s The Oil He Wants!” off the gramophone and go find another beat, ‘cause that one is a myth.

Sparc

11

I lean towards thinking that the Bush has intelligence information that it has shared with Blair. But we’ll find out soon enough, because the administration is starting to leak this info out to the public to shore up support.

For example, this just came out in the last few days. There was also information about a 1998 bombing in Iraq that fortuitously blew the roof off of a hangar - revealing 8 new types of remote controlled drone aircraft with hoppers for delivering chemical or biological weapons.

We’ll know soon enough. Bush is about to embark on his mission to enlist allies and the Congress in the war, and he’s going to have to provide most of what he knows in order to gain that support.

12

Hmmm… well either blair isn’t quite a real boy yet and Bush found the controls that move the mouth and eyes or Blair is taking a gamble hoping that a victory in Iraq will increase his popular support.

I’m not sure why we have to invade now as opposed to six months or two years ago.

I need proof. I’m not sure what type of proof but as My Prime Minister The Right Honourable Jean Chretien has said:

“What is a Proof? The proof is the proof and when you have a good proof it’s proven”

My god after all these years of listening to him a statement like that starts to make sense even if it sounds like utter crap.

But I agree, I say no action is warrented unless you have a compelling proof.

So George Dubbya It better be good!

13

Well, I’ll raise a different angle:

I tend to the view that Blair is singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as all his immediate predecessors, including the likes of Harold Wilson and Mad Dog Thatcher. It is, of course, something fairly significant that could see such varied creatures of the night singing harmoniously, have them risk their own personal popularity and be such pro-active enthusiasts - as they have all been, in their in own way and in the quite seriously shifting circumstances of the past 30-50 years.

Let me illustrate by the example of 9/11:

From, say, about 10.00am East Coast/3.00pm London and for (at least) 24 hours, the US Government was not answering the phone. Period. No response, no plan, silence.

Blair (at the TUC Conference) knocks up a speech supporting the US and delivers it in place of the planned address. Then it’s a quick conference huddle with the inner circle before a never-ending day and night on the phone – including being the first (possibly only) international phone call Bush would have taken.

Result: Not influencing but, rather, informing the views and policies fermenting within the US Administration at that time, easing EU/European concerns over the nature of the likely US response and, once reassured by Blair that Bush wasn’t losing the plot, a coordinated European response to the attack based on that knowledge that Georgie wasn’t going to go banana’s (at least immediately). That response (from Europe) included the usual diplomatic niceties and general condemnation but it also allowed Blair to present a too tempting fait accompli to Georgie: an agreed framework supported by all the potential allies i.e. NATO. That was, given the shortness of time and difficulty in grasping the Very Large Indeed Picture, a beautiful piece of work. IMHO.

Georgie didn’t necessarily know it, but he wanted NATO for the (later) “world is with us” stuff and Europe wanted NATO because it acts (in this scenario) like a brake on any potential excesses (from a first term president who has but a passing acquaintance with passport control). And it keeps the communication/information lines open. The world settled down again understanding some kind of real-world framework existed in response to an event that was unthinkable and (diplomatically) unplanned for.

Yet no other outsider would have got to the Bush inner circle and informed opinions there, gauged the tone of that opinion (for the worried Europeans) and put together a planned response that satisfied all parties so very, very quickly at a time when no one had the first idea of what was going to unfold, or even about how to control events. It was a most worrying time. No question.

For that short period, Blair’s was the only hand on the tiller and, more importantly, the only possible hand on the tiller.

And that’s the UK’s game: The only way it can influence events on the world stage is to punch far above its weight. Aside from economic and military considerations (because they’re unrelated to the OP), the way the UK does that diplomatically is to have the American ear (at some superficial cost) and to use that to its advantage elsewhere. Example: Basic tenet for just about every diplomat at the UN – If you want the Americans to consider something, anything, you have to run it past the Brits first.

If there’s only one point of interest in this policy, I tend to think it’s how the role the UK has played has changed (increased) in the post-Cold War period. Now, we have one super power with one close ally, and that in spite of a more unified Europe (which, in other circumstances, might be thought to be challenging the diplomatic role of the UK). Without the USSR, the UK’s role has morphed into something quite different.

Thus, the playing field itself and the rules have changed dramatically yet the UK remains 10 points clear with three games to go: Hugely dynamic policy, (generally) extremely well judged and wonderfully pragmatic. And not a little sophisticated. I think, whether one agrees with the general thrust or not, the policy - in practice - is a real piece of work. Hence the support of every PM, even in the face of considerable personal cost.

14

So basically we are just a p.a for the US.

15

I think there’s more to it but, sure, if you want to look at it that way. But at the same time we are a pa for the EU and for the wider Europe, for Africa, for the Commonwealth, for the non-aligned within the UN, etc…The primo facilitator and deal-maker. And it becomes self-fulfilling – influence with Europe begets influence with the US begets more influence with Europe begets…

16

I think there is something to that. Britain is trying to steer a path clear of being completely entangled in the bueaucracy of the EU (a smart move, IMO). But that would leave Britain pretty isolated, so it is intelligently pulling closer to the U.S. This gives Britain military and diplomatic weight greater than its actual size should indicate. The alliance between the U.S. and Britain is becoming more and more important to both countries in the post-cold war world.

Good analysis, London_Calling.

17

Bosnia didn’t have U.N. sanction, either, but it didn’t mean much. =}

18

Britain has been hitched to the U.S. since WWII. Next to U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China, it’s the most important nation-to-nation relationship in existence. If Blair rebuffs Bush on Iraq, the long-term consequences are dire for Great Britain, as it’s so dependent on the States.

You might say it’s the duty of the PM to stand with the U.S., even when it’s as dumb as a post, and even when the English street (I love the concept) demurs.

Blair stands to gain war popularity if the war goes well, so regardless of good evidence or not, he’s set. He can even backtrack if he wants and just say he was being a good friend to the U.S. - he’s good at that, I hear. However, I think he really wants Iraq to go down.

The very secrecy of the ‘evidence’, BTW, hints to its lameness. If it were explosive or convincing, it’d be leaked and all over the papers by now.

  • Mike
19

I’m not sure the consequences of a falling out with the US would be that dire, to be honest. Blair would have to do some fence-mending within the EU, but life in the UK would carry on fairly unchanged. I’m also unconvinced that war = popularity in this instance; even the tabloid press seems a little cynical.

20

London_Calling,

good analysis and in one sense, very comforting. I understand where you’re coming from and can see how you can come to your conclusions. Unfortunately it implies a level of competence in Blair that is lacking in other areas. For example, Blair has singulalrly failed to make serious inroads in major areas where he has made policy decisions to improve the situation - health, education, crime to name three that have actually got worse or are perceived to have got worse since 1997. The economy is strong but that was inherited from the Tories and thanks to Gordon Brown, it is weakening under floods of red tape and a steadily increasing tax burden.

My analysis, FWIW, is that Blair talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. His first and only priority is re-election. Everything else is subordinated to that requirement.