Is Blair really 'risking everything' over Iraq?





Former New Labour cabinet minister Mo Mowlam has warned that Blair could even lose power over an unpopular war: 'If the war is not quick and successful, he could suffer considerable political damage. He may even have to resign as prime minister.'


For a politician like Blair, who has helped to turn risk-aversion into something resembling a religion, this might seem like an uncharacteristic gamble. But, as with many things today, the real risks may not be as great as nervous observers imagine. Blair is likely to get away with his Iraqi gamble, and may even emerge from the crisis looking triumphant - not because of his own moral strength, but thanks to the weakness of the opposition both in Iraq and over here.


Blair is certainly staking a lot of his political capital on success in the international arena. He has always found it easier to look purposeful by striding about on the world stage than by getting stuck into the messy business of domestic politics. Faraway conflicts can be starkly posed as a crusade for Good against Evil, in a way that is not possible when trying to manage the NHS accounts. Blair's post-11 September Labour conference speech, in which he talked about a mission to heal the world, is widely regarded as a highpoint of his premiership.


This emphasis on international issues has now taken on an even greater significance for Blair, as New Labour's domestic policies show signs of running out of what little steam they had. The programme of constitutional reform remains bogged down, there is little sign of improvement in the health, education or transport systems, and confidence in the UK economy is sinking. But if he cannot get the trains to run on time (or at all in a snow shower), he believes that he can still look like a statesman by running Saddam to ground.


It is worth noting that whoever was British prime minister today would have little real choice but to back Bush over Iraq. The UK's standing in the world has long depended on its close strategic alliance with the mighty USA. Going it alone, or becoming just another medium-sized European state, is not an option any British political leader would seriously consider. What Blair has done, however, by endorsing the US 'war on terror' and campaign against Saddam so enthusiastically, is to try to make a political virtue out of that strategic necessity.


Are the risks of going for it really as great as many (inside the government as well as out) now seem to believe?


Take the risks of Blair having a 'bad war' in Iraq that so concern critics like Mowlam. Saddam's Iraq is a ruined state, far weaker than before the Gulf War of 1991 - and that, it should be recalled, was a walkover for the West in military terms. The US-led alliance suffered only about 150 casualties in total (and a good few of them were killed by 'friendly fire' from their own side). Estimates suggest that anything up to a thousand times as many Iraqis died.


If US strategists do manage to implement their plans for a swift, crushing assault on Iraq this time, the enemy will not resist for long. With reports that British forces will largely be 'covering the Americans' rears' rather than doing much fighting in the front line, Blair could be forgiven for fancying his chances of pulling off a relatively low-risk/high-stakes triumph in Iraq.


It is the risk-averse outlook of Britain and the USA that presents the biggest danger to these states

Back home, despite warnings of falling support for New Labour from some recent opinion polls, the reality is that Blair is blessed with a lack of parliamentary opposition that gives him a lot of room for manoeuvre. Compare Blair's position, for example, to that of his beleaguered German counterpart, the Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is trying to maintain his international stance against war with Iraq while suffering crushing defeats in regional elections and being widely written off at home. By contrast, Blair does not face the prospect either of important elections in Britain, or of an opposition party capable of beating him.


As for the danger of a widely predicted political crisis within Labour's own ranks, that seems likely to be containable if the conflict goes as expected. As we have consistently argued on spiked, much of the opposition to war is based on pragmatic rather than principled grounds. Labour critics argue that there is not enough evidence against Saddam to justify war, that it would be dangerous to follow the USA into Iraq without United Nations support, and that a war is likely to cause more unrest in the region. Few take a stand any longer on the anti-imperialist principle that the USA, UK, UN or anybody else has no right to intervene in a sovereign state.


The political weakness of the opposition, based as it is more on fear and moral cowardice than on passionate anti-war feeling, leaves it vulnerable to being swept aside. If the UN supports a war (which it well could), if the Americans dig up a few hidden Iraqi weapons (which they well might), if the conflict ends in swift victory (which it probably will), and if the mass Muslim uprising in the region does not happen (which it probably won't), then most of the critics will be left grumbling on the sidelines. None of this means, however, that the Blair-Bush strategy really is risk-free. Indeed it is precisely the entrenched risk-averse outlook of the US and UK states that presents the biggest danger to them.


From the first, the 'war on terror' and the campaign against the 'axis of evil' have been marked by a mood of caution, uncertainty and a lack of strategic clarity within the Western capitals. This means that our leaders are quite capable of creating a political or military crisis where none should exist.


Remember, there was no military problem in Afghanistan. Yet the Americans managed to create one, through their refusal to engage their enemies other than via a campaign of high-altitude bombing that devastated everything except its targets. As a result, the fighting in Afghanistan continues.


Despite its overwhelming superiority, we should not automatically assume that the US-UK military alliance will prove able to act decisively and make everything go smoothly in Iraq. As Brendan O'Neill argues elsewhere on spiked, British and American caution about Iraq is evident in their constant backtracking over when to launch a war (see Six weeks for Saddam...again).


If all does go to plan and Blair emerges triumphant, the long-term consequences of his Iraqi gamble remain uncertain - for instance, in terms of the damage it might do to Britain's international standing. Even in the immediate term, the fact that Blair has embarked on this strategy should be seen as a telling indictment of his government and the state of politics. The meaning of bold leadership has now been reduced to stage-managing foreign wars, rather than taking the risk of tackling the real problems facing Britain and the world.
 http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DC32.htm