A REPUBLIC, NOT A PARLIAMENT:

European Governments On One Side, Voters On The Other (Clive Crook, Feb. 21, 2003, National Journal)

The White House apparently believes that divisions in Europe over the need to confront Saddam Hussein are of small concern. In many ways, it is right.
America does not need Europe's help to deal with threats to its security. Militarily, it may be better off alone -- or with just a few allies that are strategically placed or competent for niche tasks. The objections to war being expressed by the governments of France, Germany, Russia and others are unpersuasive. America has made its case repeatedly and at length, and the dissenters have failed to offer any plausible alternative to war. Given their earlier agreement to "serious consequences" for Saddam if he failed to disarm, their good faith is now in question. [...]

On top of all this is the desire -- unworthy, but understandable -- to let America carry the burden alone, so that Britain does not become a terrorist target. Britain is not immune to the logic of weakness, the desire to free ride on another's strength. Perhaps it is less inclined than some to dress this up as moral superiority, but it is not immune to that either. The opinion polls do suggest that a majority would support a war against Iraq so long as a second resolution at the United Nations explicitly authorized it. If you recall, that was the position in the United States as well, up until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent presentation to the Security Council. That was when a good number of Americans decided that if Powell's evidence had failed to persuade the U.N., it was the U.N. that was at fault. There has been no corresponding shift of opinion in Britain. In recent days, views have moved the other way. And for now, a U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing war looks out of reach. [...]

If Britain had a constitution like America's, Blair would be unable to deliver the military support he has promised. The country is not evenly divided: A substantial majority of the public opposes war on the terms that now present themselves.

That last bit seems exactly backwards. Mr. Blair could at any moment lose the support of his own party and be thrown out of office, at which point British military support for the United States would evaporate. If Britain had a constitution like ours, he'd be immune to such overly direct democracy--barring impeachment--and his party would risk defeat at the next poll if it emasculated its own leader. This creates pressure, as we saw with Bill Clinton in the Balkans, for even an anti-war party to support practically any intervention that their leader drags them into. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2003 8:32 AM