2.26.2007

Tony's Retreat

by Laura Snedeker

A man can only take so much, and the escalation of the Iraq War was Tony Blair’s last straw. The 1,600 British troops controlling the southern city of Basra will leave in the next few months, having completed the turnover to Iraqis, although Iraqi officials expect sectarian violence will persist.

There are a number of reasons why Prime Minister Blair, America’s staunchest coalition ally, would so abruptly withdraw more than twenty percent of Britain’s 7,100 troops. Like the United States, Britain is trying to fight two wars at once, both of which are increasingly deadly. Troops in Afghanistan, forgotten by many who assumed that everything was under control since the invasion in 2001, are battling a resurgent Taliban who can draw on distrust of the occupiers and disgust with the failure of Hamid Karzai’s government to control anything outside Kabul. And although Basra is a relatively safe area of Iraq, deployment still takes its toll on the morale of British troops, according to military leaders (fancy that: a political leader who listens to his dissident generals instead of firing them).

Like George W. Bush, Blair doesn’t have to worry about losing the next election: He’s wisely decided not to seek another term, fully aware that he would get neither the support of the Labour Party nor the support of the majority of Britons, who were opposed to the war from the beginning. In contrast, I suspect that if Bush could legally run for a third term, he would. Blair seems to have developed a sense of loyalty. The only way to save the party is for him to go, and certainly he doesn’t want to be remembered as the man who lost Britain back to the Tories.

But maybe in addition to these practical and political concerns, Blair’s become too uncomfortable with the truth: He knows the war is lost. Even if Basra were to remain stable, Baghdad is the center of a great power struggle between American troops, Iraqi troops, and various insurgent groups, some with links to the very government supposedly trying to maintain order.

I’m not arguing that Blair’s suddenly seen the immorality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I do believe the man is smart enough to recognize a bloodbath when he sees one. Just as he doesn’t want to be remembered as the destroyer of the Labour Party, neither does he want to be remembered for blindness and stubbornness in the face of failure.

The British government declined to announce a date for total troop withdrawal, but it’s not hard to predict that when the last troops fly from the roof of the embassy in Baghdad, there won’t be any Britons among them.

If only President Bush would follow his pal’s lead and resign in September.

(White House photo of Prime Minister Blair and President Bush by Shealah Craighead; the photo is in the public domain.)





Add to Technorati Favorites

Digg!
 Subscribe in a reader

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think Blair saw almost a duty to assure that America did not go completely unilateral in the invasion of Iraq and clearly Blair thought he could influence Bush much better by standing by his side than by being on the outside.

Blair really wanted two things from Bush and his failure to get either of them caused him to loose whatever little face he had left with the British public. One Blair wanted Bush to get UN approval to go to war. Bush revisionists actually now try to claim that they had UN approval but we all know that never happened, that was the first serious egg in Tony's face.

The second thing Blair wanted was that Bush lead a serious effort to support a peace in Palestine. Again, Bush simply ignored his "friend" the poodle Tony Blair.

Blair was played like a fool, and that doesn't play well in Britain, and even worse, he was played for a fool by none other than a man tantamount to a political "Inspector Clouseau", in other words, a fool.... Our President Bush. And I think that more than anything galls the Brits.

© iVoryTowerz 2006-2009

Blogger Templates by OurBlogTemplates.com 2008