March 11, 2003

DO THE RIGHT THING, TONY:

Brits Backing Out? (CBS News, March 11, 2003)
Sources tell CBS News that Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted as much Tuesday.

"To the extent that they are able to participate that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they are not, well, there are workarounds," Rumsfeld said.

War in Iraq is now supported by fewer than 20 percent of Britons, and Prime Minister Tony Blair has told Washington he needs U.N. authorization, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante.

So Britain is now talking about a new amendment to the draft resolution in the Security Council that would extend the March 17 deadline by as much as another ten days and would include strictly defined disarmament benchmarks – something the U.S. has opposed in the past.

"The United Kingdom is in a negotiation and it's prepared to look at timelines and tests together," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said. "But I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March, don't look beyond March."


The Labour government bailing out would hardly be surprising but it would be terribly disappointing if Mr. Blair did not go down with the policy. No man of honor could be so repudiated by his party and be forced to betray an ally and still choose to cling to personal power. It's an issue worth resigning over and he must. As a great British PM once said to a different Bush: "Don't go wobbly". Posted by Orrin Judd at March 11, 2003 7:59 PM
Comments

For the first time in a while, I'm gonna disagree with you. Blair sticks to this and he's gone; he's gone, and we have to deal with George Galloway as PM (or, less hyperbolically, some lesser Old Laborite) when we deal with North Korea, Syria, etc., etc. And British intelligence is still some of the best in the biz -- how likely are we to get Intel aid and comfort from Blair's successor?



If Blair bows out now, it doesn't make a difference to us, as long as he aids us when the hurdles get bigger. I think he will.



And he sure as beats the alternative.

Posted by: Chris Badeaux at March 12, 2003 12:00 AM

What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole Labour Party and lose his soul?



We don't need the Brits for war and intelligence agencies operate beyond the control of their governments--especially Leftist governments. Meanwhile, it would be a very salutary thing for the British people to see that Labour isn't Tony Blair and that he wasn't Labour.



One of the most important things great leaders do is step aside when events call for it.

Posted by: oj at March 12, 2003 12:51 AM

oj,

I don't think you've been giving Blair nearly enough credit for what he's been able to do thus far. The man's stance on this issue has been heroic,

given the pressures he's facing.



But the "problem" with democracies is the people make their choices. Two cheers?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 12, 2003 3:42 AM

I suppose Blair could order their forces to participate regardless, but there are subsequent efforts underway. We can handle Iraq, but I understand that Britain has superb intelligence, including operations, in Iran. He will sit this one out. He will not resign. Britain will be with us again, soon.

Posted by: abi babi at March 12, 2003 5:33 AM

abi:



You think Labour will pitch in with N/. Korea, Columbia, Syria and S. Lebanon after sitting out Iraq?

Posted by: oj at March 12, 2003 1:58 PM
« I THOUGHT SUNNIS AND SHIITES COULDN'T BE ALLIES: | Main | SOMEWHERE, HARRY IS LAUGHING. »