The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency

Rating:
Summary: Useful account of Blair's links with Bush
Review:
James Naughtie, the Today presenter, has written a useful account of Blair's links with the USA, particularly with Bush and his colleagues. Naughtie recalls that when he asked Pentagon insider Richard Perle what came next after Afghanistan, Perle replied, "The really important thing is that there is a next."

So, in January 2002, Bush set the timetable for invading Iraq and told Blair. Blair then promised to join Bush's war, secretly changing government policy from peace to war, without telling anybody.

Naughtie writes that the `bloodstream' of the US-British special relationship is the intelligence linkage. Indeed, the USA's intelligence services are the world's biggest and most expensive. Yet all the US intelligence claims about Iraq's WMD - the uranium oxide bought from Niger, the mobile chemical laboratories - have been proven false. US intelligence was so bad that the CIA's head resigned, and his deputy left too.

The Labour government had all these intelligence resources behind them. Yet their notorious government dossier on WMD was largely pilfered from a ten-year-old PhD thesis! So what, exactly, did Britain gain from this so-special relationship and its precious `bloodstream'?

As a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq, there is now an illegal occupation of Iraq. Naughtie quotes a senior Foreign Office man who described the US's occupation policy as `a catastrophe from beginning to end'.

When Naughtie asked Blair if he agreed with the White House lawyer who said that the Geneva Conventions were `quaint', Blair replied, "Of course not. Neither do the Americans." Typically, Blair was denying the evidence just put in front of him.

Labour's war (for the Labour Party could have stopped it, but didn't even try) has weakened all that it holds dear. The link with the USA is in danger, the EU split, NATO divided, the Labour Party eviscerated, and Parliament, the Foreign Office and the intelligence services all discredited. But worse, Labour's war has made Israel increase its killings, thrown the Middle East into chaos, worsened the risks of terrorism to Britain and elsewhere, and added the danger of endless wars in a `clash of civilisations'.


Rating:
Summary: Bush is his Co-Pilot: Blair, Bush and the Iraq War
Review: The political behavior of British Prime Minister Tony Blair is something of an enigma - why does he support the American president, so despised in the UK, at great harm to his popularity? Why did he back Bush into the war in Iraq, ostensibly in quest of weapons of mass destructions, even though the UN inspectors urged for more time?

As Blair followed George W. Bush, his popularity in the UK plummeted, his party is in something close to an open revolt, and his standing in Europe has deteriorated. And for all his trouble, it appears that Blair got precious little in return from the American administration. As French President Jacques Chirac recently put it "I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

British journalist James Naughtie, author of another acclaimed book about Tony Blair (the Rivals, about the relationship between Blair and Gordon Brown), tries to answer these questions precisely. His answer is that Blair is a true believer; he believes that the 9/11 has been a wake up call for the world. "I could see this Islamic Extremism... bring about a very dangerous conjunction of terrorism and states that are utterly unstable and repressive" (quoted on p. 203). These views of Blair's antedated 9/11. They were the impetus for his promotion of the Kosovo war. Already in the late 1990s, Blair saw a new international order rising, one based on the struggle against evil. The terrorist threat required a whole new political philosophy:

"Before September 11th the world's view of the justification of military action had been changing. The only clear case in international relations for armed intervention had been self-defence, response to aggression. But the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency" But after 9/11, "What had seemed inchoate came together." The need for security required preemptive action. Countries which suppressed freedom, harbored terrorists or had weapons of mass destruction had to be dealt with. In effect, Blair agreed with Condoleezza Rice's claim that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

So is the Labour PM really in accord with Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld? In Naughtie's thorough discussion, it is not so simple. There is a great difference between Bush and Blair. Naughtie quotes Blair as saying "I never quite understand what people mean by that neocon thing" (p.71)

That may be the key to explain the great divide between Blair and the Bush administration. Blair may not be aware of the gap, or of its enormity. The Prime Minster believes in the importance of democracy. For him, the military action against Iraq or El Qaeda is only a part of a greater attempt to create international security and peace. "You cannot deal with terrorism security as simply a security issue. You also have to deal with the more compassionate side of the issue... the poverty, the lack of interfaith understanding. All these things need to be part of the agenda." Although Bush and his administration may pay lip service to these ideals, for them internationalism and real international cooperation are anathema. They cannot possibly support them.

In my view, Blair's partnership with Bush committed him to the Bush administration's incompetent, corrupt and extremist policies. Naughtie seems to think that Blair's support was essential or at least important, to Bush (see for example p. 203). But I disagree - in the Bush administration, the moderates, as Paul O'Neal observed, act as cover only. Bush would use Blair for all he is worth - but he would concede nothing in return.

I have much sympathy for the ideology Blair advocates, but Bush is no partner for promoting it. Blair's collaboration with the Bush administration not only diminishes his popularity - it also discredits his cause.