> Let me ask you a question: Why do you think Blair
> did support Bush? I've tried to think of rational
> reasons, and have thus far drawn a blank -- except
> maybe to exert some influence on US policy?
I do agree with you that exerting an influence on US policy may have been a factor. But, to take on the no-bullshit-eating tone of Mark E Smith of the Fall, you have to say "he failed didn't he?" (sorry for the obscure reference but I think that's exactly what MES would have said!)
If Blair's mission was to cling onto Bush's coat tails (maybe hoping to use them as a sort of primitive brake mechanism) then why wasn't there a plan for reconstruction after the war's end? Two options: (1)Either Blair had absolutely no influence or was not consulted, or (2)he did have sufficient influence but did not think it an important enough issue to raise. I go for the first - not out of any desire to give him the benefit of the doubt, but because I see a distinct lack of senior British figures in the CPA. Sir Jeremy Greenstock must have some influence, but it's not an official position. Perhaps his strategy of keeping the US in check had already failed by that point.
Still, I think we need to look at the question in another way. Something that hasn't been thought about that much is the prospect that Blair - rather like Hitchens; rather like Aaronovitch - had a similar neocon conversion.
Okay, so Blair was never fit to lace the boots of Hitchens in his prime and never had CH's progressive credentials. But I'm inclined to say that post 9/11, the day that Bush called Blair "America's truest friend" - and Blair believed it - THAT was the point when Blair became a neocon (or maybe it was when he discovered that they both used the same brand of toothpaste).
9/11 was surely the event where the wooliest of liberals gained the hardest of shells. During the clamour for war how easy it was for them to believe in freedom. I mean, hey, I believe in freedom, too! And equality! And liberation! Maybe I'm a liberal.
Blair's lexicon has always relied on such words; words which, under his tutelage have become detached from the hard edge of words such as 'fight', 'war' and even 'politics', and have instead become coupled with more Blair-like words of our 'duty' and 'obligation' towards an oppressed people; of the 'rights' and 'opportunities' that our civilizing mission will open up.
The war in Afghanistan was the sort of war that fell into the category of 'just' for these sorts of liberals, whose arguments are - sometimes with a little more erudition - just as simple minded as those conservatives who most resemble cavemen: Taliban bad; democracy good.
What brought war in Iraq closer was the ease with which British and US forces (and John Simpson) were able to liberate the Afghanistan. I somehow suspect that this was how Blair and Bush saw the Iraq war turning out - never mind the fact that they hadn't even finished with Afghanistan yet.
It was Blair - not Bush - who stood to lose more in the early months of 2003, particularly after the largest march in British history in February 2003. In Woodward(?)'s book there is a passage maintaining that Blair was offered the chance to pull out of the alliance. Despite the war's unpopularity, Blair stayed loyal to Bush (though, with my politician's hat on, I would have done the same - to pull out at that stage would have been a sign of terminal weakness, at odds with Blair's 'convictions'). Indeed, as the Hutton report shows, the level of credulity shown by Blair and his circle towards any form of evidence, true or false, that might support the case for war seems to suggest a mind hell-bent on war. Neither Blair nor Bush envisaged the current disaster and perhaps Blair thought that images of cheering Iraqis waving the British flag would more than turn around public opinion*. Nevertheless, it's clear that Blair took a risk in going to war with Iraq, and, in my opinion, it's too much of a risk for it to have been simply for strategic reasons.
Or maybe he's just easily led by the big boys from across the pond.
Simon
* Labour's lead was 40-32 in September 2002; 34-33 after the antiwar march in February 2003; 40-32 again after 'liberation' and is now 33-34 (Yougov).
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html