Of course, re-election is the prime goal of any elected representative. Yep, I agree he has to address perceptions better. Thankfully (for him) there’s no opposition to hinder that task.
No question the Health Service is having more money thrown at it that any time in it’s history. The question becomes; What improvements will all that money make – will they be proportional, exponential, less than proportional. The answer, as I think any economist would agree, has to be less than proportional (at least to begin with).
I think he and Brown have done all that is reasonable in relation to Health but will the results start to show enough before the election ?
As for education, it a huge area. Can’t begin, IMHO, to address all the problems until social disenfranchisement/opportunity and poverty is more radically confronted. Brown has done some good work on that, IMHO. Nonetheless, I’d like to see Blair address quality of teaching and the professional status of teachers; a lot more money for teachers so there becomes competition for positions instead of this crazy (and expensive) supply teacher culture.
Can’t be done, though, while a sizeable proportion of the UK electorate continues to delude itself into thinking it can enjoy European levels of social provision at US tax rates.
I can’t help wondering about jjimm’s last suggestion in the OP, the suggestion that Tony Blair (and presumably Bush) may have intelligence information we don’t.
This is a question I’ve been personally wrestling over. As an American, I don’t very much trust my government, and I particularly do not trust this administration. Furthermore, while I fully expect this government to lie to me and to do things which are wrong, I don’t trust these guys to do the wrong thing competently, either. Therefore I view this posturing toward Iraq with distinct trepidation.
On the other hand, I have a fair amount of respect for Tony Blair. I found him saying and doing that which I wished my country’s leaders could say and do in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. As an outsider with only a limited knowledge of what Blair has been up to at home, I have had no reason to doubt his eloquently expressed moral outrage at the outset, and his commitment to leading the way to a definitive solution thereafter. I’m sorry to say this, but I do not think that, had the situation been reversed, America’s response would be nearly so fervent and morally consistent.
I guess the bottom line is that for me, when my President muddles his way through a typically vague and poorly structured explanation for why he wants to paste Iraq, I tend to dismiss it out of hand as ham-handed politics as usual. But when Tony friggin’ Blair stands up next to my President and says the same thing, only intelligibly, then I can’t help wondering what the hell it is they know and we don’t.
It’s Blair who is steadily convincing me as an American that something is going on over there that I should be concerned about. I ask you, my cousins, should I doubt this impression?
Sofa King, I favor the notion that Blair is publicly supporting Bush’s rhetoric so that he is in better position to privately counsel an approach more considerate of international feeling. By standing beside Bush, Mr. Blair is making a more moderate European consensus just possibly palatable enough for not only the other NATO countries, but also perhaps for the UN Security Council and Bush himself.
Blair may be banking his political future on his ability to translate Bush’s severe unilateralist talk into tough multilateral action. If so, this is quite a brave stance for a politician at Blair’s level.
I’m also starting to wonder if they know something we don’t.
London_Calling’s analysis may well be correct in terms of Britain’s general long term policy but I’m not sure how relevant it is in this particular case.
L_C’s theory would explain why Blair thought it was important to remain close to Bush in the post-9/11 aftermath but Iraq doesn’t seem to have anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.
Iraq is (as far as we know) a completely different issue. Maybe Iraq has helped al Q in the past and maybe they haven’t, who knows? We’ve seen no real compelling evidence one way or the other.
So if we assume Iraq is a different issue, what could Blair and Bush know that we don’t? Why has attacking Iraq become so urgent all of a sudden? Why can’t we attack them in a year or two and spend the intervening time trying to persuade Europe and the arabs that it’s a good idea?
Last I heard (on the news today) they are now thinking of attacking possibly as soon as December. Why the urgency?
Downing Street sources hailed the report as significant but emphasised that the IISA didn’t have access to intelligence sources as if suggesting that the Downing St dossier (to be published soon) will say similar things but will be backed up by intelligence.
Is it possible Saddam has managed to get hold of some uranium (or will soon). Imagine if Iraq detonated a nuclear bomb out in the desert somewhere to announce to the world that Iraq is now a nuclear power.
The US would have to seriously rethink any invasion plans if they are going to invade a nuclear power. Maybe they want to invade before this happens hence the sudden urgency.
Anyone watch Dick Cheney on Meet The Press yesterday? The interview was very interesting for what he didn’t say. He spent a lot of time carefully choosing his words, refusing to say one way or another about things, etc. He struck me as a guy whose facts were a mix of classified and non-classified information. He did confirm the intelligence reports of intercepting a shipment of materials to Iraq that are used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, but also said they had no way of knowing how many other similar shipments were missed.
He was asked directly, “Assuming our allies know what we know, why aren’t they supporting us?”
Cheney: "They don’t know what we know. "
Tony Blair does. Britain is the only ally of the U.S. right now that would be trusted with top-secret information. So I think there is a high likelihood that there are still some revelations about Iraq.
I’ve been suggesting that on the SDMB for a couple of weeks now.
I suspect we might hear some new information from Bush when he addresses the U.N. on Thursday.
Oh, and don’t forget that Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed describing U.S. justification for war - an Op-ed that was pulled on the weekend because it couldn’t be cleared by the people who vett releases like this to make sure they don’t divulge classified information. Rumsfeld said that the op-ed would ‘probably’ run ‘some time in the future’.
Here’s a prediction for Thursday: I have a strong hunch that Bush will be calling for a new round of inspections in Iraq during his U.N. speech. I’ll bet I even know the parameters - Bush will ask for the following:
Immediate unlimited access inside Iraq to weapons inspectors.
‘Coercive’ inspections (i.e. if you don’t let us enter a facility, we have the right to bomb it).
A tight deadline for compliance - on the order of 2-4 weeks for Iraq to make up its mind.
A call for a security council resolution authorizing regime change if the above conditions are not met.
Anyone want to bet on this? All the tea leaves are pointing this way.
And frankly, I think everyone knows that Saddam won’t comply with that, but it will give the U.N. its justification for authorizing the use of force.
Frankly, I think this is what he *should say at the U.N., and if he does, I think he’ll get the security council’s approval, and when Saddam screws up, there will be an honest-to-god coalition of nations going after him again.
This may be a tad optimistic on my part, but I think it’s the most likely scenario at this point.
Let me ask this: Of you guys opposed to invading Iraq, would you be in favor of the speech I outlined above, assuming Bush then went to the congress and got a vote on the matter (which he will do)?
Granted, I am anxious to digest this “information”, but if it is there, looks solid, I’ll be behind him. That’s all assuming the American people (as reflected by Congress) and the UN are supportive as well.
And let’s say it goes as you suggest, which seems reasonable to me. US, British, and a smattering of other “coalition” forces plow into Bagdad, string Saddam up by his nuts, and declare victory - what then? Same model as we are pursuing in Afghanistan, perhaps?
Well yes, but with the support of the world the job is *much easier. With the support of other Arab nations, the public-relations battle is in much better shape. With the support of countries like Canada and Australia, peacekeeping is much easier. The U.S. armed forces are a strike force - they aren’t really designed for peacekeeping. Canada’s is, and we’re the second largest supplier of peacekeeping forces in the world. You need the help of counties like ours, especially if it goes for the long haul.
Put in cost/benefit terms, the advantages of *trying for a coalition by offering a regime of coercive inspections outweigh the risks of waiting until a consensus can be built. Or at least, it looks that way to me. But the U.N. will have to agree to a force resolution, or the U.S. will probably go alone anyway.
I have to say, I think that’s exactly what he’s doing – not so much out of bravery (IMHO), but necessity.
As a result, I actually have some sympathy for Blair at the moment. He’s trying to pursue this all-party (note the avid (opposition party) Tory support of the US policy), long-term, main plank of UK Foreign Policy (standing with the US) in conjunction with a man (Bush) whose motivations he entirely distrusts and agenda he disagrees with – IMHO, this particular scenario (a conservative US president with self-serving agenda’s, strutting on the international stage) is, literally, the worst-case scenario for a British PM. I rather imagine he wants the next two (plus) years to be over as soon as possible and for the US electorate to vote in a politician.
Yet the farther Blair goes in his support of Bush, the more exposed he is domestically – bridging this cavernous divide is costing him an awful lot of credibility at home as the perceived flaws (evidence, motivation, Mandate…) are exploited by others for their own gain (though, curiously, the Official Opposition isn’t amongst them).
This is interesting. Everyone is focused on the evidence because they want us focused on the evidence. Why ?
Best answer I’ve got at the moment:
It looks like it’s been decided – I imagine this was Blair’s tactic – to go to the UN first (for the Mandate) and then supplement that new international credibility with the somewhat dodgy evidence – the order/timeline, IMHO, has been deemed vitally important.
Of course that presupposes they get the UN Mandate – I rather imagine Blair is hoping such a Mandate would have Saddam throwing open the gates to the presidential palaces (again) for inspections so he (Blair) has something serious with which to temper Bush. Wouldn’t it be nice (for Blair) if any UN Mandate was conditional on: “All other avenues having been fully explored…” (or similar) – almost seems the only way Georgie will get UN approval ?
That, then, permitss Blair to really push Bush for Inspectors (as per the international consensus) and Bush doesn’t get Saddam’s oil…and Blair wins international kudos and cements his/the UK’s role on the international stage.
Jojo – The urgency may well come from the fact that Georgie has only two years to go and needs to get this job done …for the Gipper. I’ve been touting this Memo around for a while because it’s encapsulates, what is for me, a very valid explanation – does mentioning RM Nixon amount to a breach of Godwin’s Law ?
The fact is, Abe, that no matter how many times you write that the UN inspectors have been responsible for finding and destroying Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, no such thing has happened. By arguing the inspections should go on until every rock has been overturned at least several times in a land 10,000 square miles larger than California, you are giving voice to Nixon’s strategy of starving every last Iraqi to death if that is what it takes to get Saddam. All UNSCOM evidence indicates that all weapons destroyed since the Gulf War were the result of the Iraqi government’s decision to comply with the UN resolutions as quickly as possible in hopes of having the sanctions lifted. The UNSCOM reports reveal that no weapon has been found and destroyed by the independent action of the inspectors. That is, no hidden weapons have been discovered in the seven years of inspection. Furthermore, no weapons have been destroyed since November 1991. NO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND OR DESTROYED SINCE NOVEMBER 1991!!! Do you hear me Abe? The secret policy of our government, backed by Nixon and his pals in the political establishment, has been to move the goalposts every time Baghdad gets within a yard of compliance. This is why Saddam made such a fuss with the American inspectors last fall, purposely manufacturing a crisis in order to bring world attention to the Holocaust-like situation underway in his country.
</quote>
I wonder if Sam Stone’s knee is quivering ?
In addition, another impetus to the urgency may well be seen in a post 9/11 light: Saudi Arabia isn’t as reliable (a source of oil) now fundamentalism has become rife – 9/11 underscored that point - and the West needs the 18% of the world’s reserves that Saddam is sitting on as competition and a Plan B
Back to Rhapsody and Sparc’s disagreement about the oil.
Sparc said any cost of waging a full on war would dwarf the wealth of the oil.
I don’t think a full on war is on the cards; all the talk so far has been of disposing of the leadership an replacing with a UK and US friendly regime a lá Afghanistan. In such a scenario, I would imagine the trade prospects and potential wealth generated in oil reserves to far exceed the costs of any military action.
there is something like 7 trillion dollars of oil and gas reserves just in the caspian sea area. Some of our major oil companies have already invested enough money to pay for a small war, not to mention the fact that a war will be paid for in blood and money by the american people not the oil companies that will profit from the results not the politicians who will reap their rewards along the way.
cos, IMHO, that particular part of the wider agenda is about control of the supply - meaning free flowing, preferably non-OPEC, preferably a non-potential blackmail tool, preferably with US interests with it’s fingers in as many infrastructure, production, refining, distribution pies as possible.
And preferably a puppet/friendly democracy in place so your investments (infrastructure and puppets) won’t be far from the protective safety of a (newly built) US military base.
Basically Saudi as the neo-conservatives wish it was, plus with puppet and/or token democracy - Saddam might be a convenient tool in a number of respects but he’s not so big on democracy or being someone’s else’s official stooge
I did not say that. I said that it would dwarf the financial benefit. Look to oil production per annum instead of oil field yield potential. Iraq when not under sanctions produces about 3.5 million barrels per day and under sanctions they currently produce about 2.7 million bpd. The Oil for Food program restricts how Iraq can use the revenue from that yield and thus disables them to take part in any price raising efforts and such, however this benefit to the price per barrel is largely offset by the instability factor that Saddam creates, which in its turn keeps the price up.
For arguments sake we can thus say that the oil added on the market would be 0.8 million bpd provided at the same low extraction cost as OPEC oil (ME oil is significantly cheaper to produce and will thus have heavier impact on ppb).
World production of Oil 1997 was 66.27 million bpd, 28.36 million bpd (42%) of that was OPEC oil. Let’s just say for arguments sake that taking OPEC oil off the market has the capacity to double the price of crude oil - this is way, way too simple but in fact during the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 the effect was a 100% increase and we can safely assume that it would at least be close to that or higher if all of it was suddenly unavailable. Furthermore just taking the Iraq oil off the market will have much, much milder effects, but for the sake of this argument the 100% figure serves us well.
Hence 42% oil disappearing represents a 100% increase. Iraqi oil production added when sanctions are lifted represents 2.8% of that.
The crude oil price per barrel is currently $29.80 (rising due to the tension in the ME region). Let us say that this is a normalized level again for arguments sake only. The impact of Iraqi oil in this “oil price effects of a stable Iraq for morons model" that I have created would be $0.83 pb. This is way, way too high, but on the other hand there are other effects that drive the oil price down if we can achieve a more stable Gulf region (which BTW is most uncertain that a war will do – and Dubya & Tony know that much at least).
The US consumes around 19 million barrels of oil per day. In real money this model would mean $15.77 million saved per day or $5.7 billion per annum.
Say that a war would destabilize oil prizes for one year, delaying any such effect and increasing oil prices by at least the same amount (much more and longer is more probable).
The Gulf war cost somewhere in the vicinity of $60 billion, lets say that the costs not already incurred for action in Iraq this time around are half of that.
Hence: After one year and a successful campaign against Iraq the cost in real money and increased oil prices would be around $36 billion. To recoup that cost through the decrease in oil price thereafter would take another 6 years.
Once again this whole model is stupid to the point of moronic. It wildly exaggerates the probable benefits and grossly underestimates the probable negative effects on ppb that a war would produce, and understates the cost of war, but even with that it shows that the oil argument is not a viable one. Vaguely possible financial benefits to be reaped six years down the line is not the kind of thing that even the dumbest politician goes to war on.
I have argued all of this from a US perspective because I have more data available, but the same goes for UK and the EU.
By the same reasoning, the purchase of Alaska was a horrible investment.
Not to say I support an invasion, but a friendly democracy in charge of Iraq’s oil fields is worth a lot more than $36 billion, long-term. $100 billion would be a bargain.
Well, I don’t sell oil, unfortunately! I know some people that do and they are fairly much better off financially than me.
First of all forget the $36 billion figure, an invasion is much more expensive than that, the figure was a low estimate as part of my hypothetical model based on very conservative figures.
Second of all; where did you see me argue against a regime change in Iraq? It’s ironic that you think so. A few hours ago I just got back from a social function related to the upcoming elections here in Germany, where at my table this topic was discussed. Many labeled me a hawk since I happen to actively advocate action against Iraq, I just don’t agree with the previously publicly stated gung-ho way of doing it that Dubya & Tony seem to have been marketing. Then again this is most probably part of realpolitik measures to get the UN in order for harder measures. I can’t wait to see what Bush says tomorrow.
More than anything my point was that thinking that control of Iraqi oil is the issue is just downright wrong. Oil is a ME issue, no doubt, but any idiot with half a foot in politics knows that it’s stability that brings the oil prices down, not control of oil fields. Iraq is about security policy in a world where the threat to democracy and security is vague to say the best.
First off it isn’t the average US citizen that will profit from this war though we will be the ones who pay the price. The oil companies that own our government will reap huge rewards however. The caspian sea area alone has reserves orth approximately 7 TRILLION dollars. Thats TRILLION with a “T”. Iraq also has reserves that amount to a value in the trillions. How would war NOT be cost effective? Not to mention the economic domination of the rest of the world that The US would enjoy if they control the oil reserves.
Why do we fear a country with a devastaed military, that is unlikly to have ANY weapons of mass destruction and NO NUCLEAR CAPABILITY? What happened to our trillion dollar Nuclear deterrent that was so effective for containing the Soviet Union? Saddam Hussein has no reason to use those types of weapons even if he were to possess them. If the use of such eapons cold entail a nuclear response it would be suicidal for a country ith such limited capability to consider using them. They serve only one purpose and that is to act as a detterent to those who might invade. If saddam uses any weapons of this class it will be becasue our dumbass pretender in chief will leave him no other choice if he hopes to defend his country.
Our foreing policy and our moral “high ground” has always rested on the policy of preventing wars or defending against them, not pre-emptive attacks and wars for financial gain. Our president and his administration has already done damage to our foreign policies, our international relationships, and our economy that will take decades to repair.
Our government is now run by selfish criminals who will stop at nothing to fill their pockets, even the deaths of YOUR children.
I think if Bush goes ahead with this war especially unilaterally as he has threatened, the next big war will be fought right here on american soil and will be a war for control of this country. Ialready know what side I will be on…
None of this is about bringing prices down. That is the last thing the oil companies or our government would want. They want to keep the prices stable and artificially high just as OPEC currently does. I suggest by this time next year we will all be paying more for our gas and that prices will continue a slow steady rise regardless of how much control the US establishes over the supply.
