Opinion - News Analysis   

Will his gamble pay off?

Tony Blair has calculated the risks and is banking on a swift, surgical war, writes Hasan Suroor.

AFTER THE United States President, George W. Bush, if any other individual can claim the dubious credit for making the latestGulf war possible, it is the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, whose political and personal chemistry with a hard Right White House remains a puzzle to many. Indeed, his single-minded pursuit of American objectives in Iraq has earned him the sobriquet "Bush's poodle''; and critics have accused him of turning Britain into the U.S.' "51st state".

Mr. Blair has gone out on a limb to back a war which has isolated him among his own people, his party, his MPs, his Ministers, and his European allies. As the former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, put it two days before the war started: "The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not NATO. Not the E.U. And now not the Security Council." Mr. Cook, who resigned his Cabinet post as Leader of the Commons over Mr. Blair's decision to support the American invasion of Iraq without explicit U.N. mandate, said "history will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations'' that have led to Britain's isolation in the international community.

In the run-up to the war, Mr. Blair's Government was rocked by a series of ministerial resignations and in a stark show of defiance, as many as 139 of his own MPs voted against his stance in Parliament in the biggest backbench revolt since he came to power six years ago. Though he survived the vote because of Labour's massive majority and the support from the Tories, even his supporters acknowledged that the revolt greatly diminished his political authority.

There are fears that if the war does not go too well and particularly if there are heavy British casualties, his job could be on the line. Comparisons are already being made with another certain Labour Prime Minister who disappeared into political oblivion after his controversial handling of the Suez crisis. But obviously, he has calculated the risks and is banking on a swift, surgical war with minimum of British and civilian casualties. Add to this the TV images of "celebrations'' on the streets of a "liberated'' Baghdad and some intensive post-war humanitarian relief work and Mr. Blair might emerge a hero — his political authority immeasurably strengthened.

But already, barely hours after the first strikes, the message both from Washington and London is that the conflict could be more protracted than people have been led to believe. If it also turns out to be messier and bloodier, Mr. Blair might end up facing what a commentator called the "LBJ moment,'' referring to the U.S. President, Lyndon Johnson, whose many domestic achievements were undone by one mistake: Vietnam. So, over to history.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• World order bombed out
• Quiet, for now
• Ducking the issue
• Deep differences
• Will his gamble pay off?
• Our future climate
• The United Nations in a divided world
• Hardly any `shock and awe'

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu