Blair's dilemma

[tigersqn]

It looks like British PM Tony Blair is backing himself into a corner with his support for Bush.

After having announced troop deployment orders amounting to as much as 30 000 men to the Middle East, he is now walking a tightrope between the US position of taking action now and the European position of allowing the weapons inspectors finish their job.

Blair faces a lot of opposition at home, indeed within his own party, against the prospect of British troops taking part in an attack on Iraq with the US in the next month or so. Many in his own party want him to follow the European line and let the inspectors gather more proof of Iraqi development of WMD.

Will he follow the European line or go along with Bush?

It would seem to me that he has already commited himself to the US position by deploying troops to the Gulf, but unless some drastic new information surfaces about Iraq, that decision could mean his political downfall at home.

[Chuck?]

If the war goes well I don't think Blair will have any problems. He will probably grow in stature for standing up against Europe. However if it goes badly he is done as well as Bush.

[Dr Zaius]

Originally posted by Chuck
If the war goes well I don't think Blair will have any problems. He will probably grow in stature for standing up against Europe. However if it goes badly he is done as well as Bush.

That's probably not far from the truth. These two are taking a huge political risk, but they are banking on their respective armed forces pulling off a big win in Iraq. If there is a war with Iraq and it is a huge success both of these leaders will probably gain a lot of respect for having the guts to take on Saddam as well as world opinion.

Of course, with US and British forces in control of Iraq it might not take long to uncover a fairly sizeable pile of Iraq's WMD. They can then show this evidence on tv and say, "see, we told you so." That will make a lot of politicians look like cowards or fools.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Don Maddox

Of course, with US and British forces in control of Iraq it might not take long to uncover a fairly sizeable pile of Iraq's WMD. They can then show this evidence on tv and say, "see, we told you so." That will make a lot of politicians look like cowards or fools.

Is this comment based on your OWN observations of Saddam's WMD's during your undercover work in Iraq? Or is it the opinion of a brainwashed G.I ? There was nothing left when the inspectors left last time. Not a thing has been found this time. Its all a load of shite. The US wants war, end of. Nothing more, nothing less. I say let them have their war - against the rest of the world, now that would be funny.:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

[Rince]

That's probably not far from the truth. These two are taking a huge political risk, but they are banking on their respective armed forces pulling off a big win in Iraq. If there is a war with Iraq and it is a huge success both of these leaders will probably gain a lot of respect for having the guts to take on Saddam as well as world opinion.

I think Napoleon said once: Victory has many fathers, Defeat is an orphan.

[Deltapooh]

Blair stands to loose more than Bush if things go bad. Bush has support from both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Blair does have such support within the various British parties. If things go bad, that guy is so screwed!