Tony Blair and W
After several months of waiting, Tony Blair officially announced his resignation as Britain's PM effective June 27. I suggest you check British media for full and in-depth reaction on his term in office. This post is on how Tony Blair's tenure was mortally wounded by an American president.
I cannot tell you why he did it, but sometime in 2002 Tony Blair decided to follow W into Iraq and hitch his own legacy to a radical foreign policy from a intellectually lazy man who was following the advice of those who though America should "act like an empire." Shouldn't a Brit have seen that as a bad sign? W's decision already fills numerous books and will be a point of discussion for decades if not centuries in this country. Blair's decision to tag along won't be the biggest section of his biographies, but will be seen as the beginning of the end of Blair's leadership.
Blair went against public opinion in Britain on Iraq. The war was never popular among the British public. Perhaps they remembered their own history in Iraq. Or perhaps, they were simply smart enough not to trust W to lead a "preventive war." This is an example where a leader ignored his voters and paid for it. The British public had it right. Blair had it wrong.
Blair was a much more articulate speaker on why war was needed against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, he must have known the weakness of the intelligence W was using to justify the invasion. If he wasn't asking "what happens after Saddam is gone?" he failed in his duty as prime minister. Once he asked that question, he should have known that W's gang was completely clueless on what to do and were ignoring those in the US government who tried to bring it up. Somehow, his desire to remain loyal to Britain's closest ally must have overridden the warning flags he had to see. He may have thought he could influence the policy. He may have thought he could guide W into a more intelligent choices after Saddam fell. He was wrong and the British have paid for it in lives and he has paid for it politically.
The beginning of the Iraq War was the last high point in Blair's popularity, he was (with the help of weak opposition from the Tories) able to lead to Labour to its first 3rd consecutive election victory in May 2005, but his majority fell and the writing was on the wall. Blair had to go. The Iraq War defines Blair's final years as Prime Minister. The Labour Party continues to suffer from his allegiance to W's stupid stupid war. After the 2005 election, there was no doubt that Tony had to go and many thought he should have left a year ago.
Labour will choose a new leader who will become Prime Minister. A Scotsman named Gordon Brown is the clear favorite. The expectation among Brits is that he will get the British out of Iraq as part of his effort to reclaim the voter support Labour will need before a new election is called by May 2010. If Labour fails to get Britain out of Iraq, the party could split so seriously that the Tories can regain their dominance of the 1980s and 1990s. And the Tories aren't anti-war. But they didn't lead the British into Iraq and that may be all that is needed.
I don't know if Blair can ever clearly explain why he choose to follow W. I would love to hear Blair's private views of the man who has helped hastened the end of his leadership. I'd love to hear what those close to Blair say about why he "took the decision" as the British say. Blair has been Labour's most electorally successful leader, but he tied his legacy to a president whose righteous arrogance tragically continues.
posted by redbarb at 8:34 AM
2 Comments:
I think that every British PM looks in the mirror and sees Winston Churchill, or at least Margaret Thatcher. Blair was well into a popular, but not especially distinguished, career as Prime Minister when George Bush sold him on a dream of greatness. And Blair was just arrogant, vain, and unfulfilled enough to buy it.
He went in as John F. Kennedy, governed as Bill Clinton, and now leaves as Lyndon Johnson. I guess he and Bill can now run off to Davos together and reminisce about the good times and whine about how great they should have been.
A number of acconts have it that Blair saw the UK - and therefore himself as PM - as the bridge between the US and Europe (and the multilateralist international community more generally). That role involved reconciliation for the benefit of all parties, but also gave the UK more influence than it might otherwise have.
In Blair's mind, Iraq therefore was probably not an aberation but rather an opportunity to improve US policy, to lean on the rudder. That was evident in 2002 when Blair told Bush that he had to at least try to get an authorizing vote out of the UN Security Council. Blair succeeded procedurally even if substantially the US and UK did not get the clean war authorization in February 2003 they sought.
Blair spent a lot of time and energy on the UN effort in 02/03 that otherwise he might have invested in pushing Bush to develop a realistic plan for post-Saddam Iraq. Clearly, Blair miscalculated just how difficult partnering with / leaning on Bush would be.
For the benefit of the UK and his own benefit, Gordon Brown will want to continue the bridge role Blair envisioned. How he will do that while also getting the UK out of Iraq and not being viewed as Bush's "poodle" as was Blair (what an image) will make for fascinating British and transatlantic politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home