A bit off topic, but. . . Is Tony Blair as obsessed with his legacy as GWB? He's PM in a much more hostile (to Iraq) environment, yet continues to keep troops there. Why? Is he convinced that it was, and continues to be, the right war, in the right place at the right time?

His staunchness in keeping troops in Iraq while facing much more public outcry in a country that has been angry for much longer amazes me, yet doesn't seem interest others. Thoughts?

The White House wasted no time blatantly lying to try and spin this story:

While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis."

In actuality, conditions have worsened by orders of magnitude in the South, with outright attacks on the British by the locals over the past year whereas initially they were received quite well.

This clearly proves that Bush was right. Rush will have some thought provoking substantial insight into this tomorrow, after which time I will tell you what I think.

His staunchness in keeping troops in Iraq while facing much more public outcry in a country that has been angry for much longer amazes me, yet doesn't seem interest others. Thoughts?

Cause it's mighty high ledge there he's got to come down from in full view of all. Easier to pretend you're not on a ledge. Best is to come down under cover.

How to tell if your genes aren't worth propagating:

1) You went to Iraq via Bush's orders.
2) You went to Iraq via Blair's orders.

Hint: Wasn't Custard also a blue-eyed fuck?

This clearly proves that Bush was right. Rush will have some thought provoking substantial insight into this tomorrow, after which time I will tell you what I have been told to think.

Posted by: American Hock on February 20, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

-there...fixed that for ya!
-KZ

Ditto that @ KerouacZac

Thanks KerouacZac.

Zachary --

Present forces 7200 I think. I have been hearing 1600 soon and 3000 (additional or total? don't know) by the end of the year, all home by end of 2008.

Yes, he is under considerable pressure for this and for overstaying his welcome as party leader.

He HAS to show that he is drawing forces down in Iraq even if he then bolsters Afghan forces which he can't do at the moment -- overstretched -- but doable. If he doesn't there will be more howls of "Bush's poodle" and another reason to speed his removal as Labour are facing the same reelection problems as the Republicans, may be worse.

Tony Blair is probably just waiting to get confirmation that his membership in the Carlyle Group has been accepted. Even a war-profiteer has to hedge their bet.

They can’t leave until Prince Harry has done some crusading in the holy lands.

There's a reason they call Tony Blair Bush's poodle.
I was horrified when they were in Europe and Bush was chewing and spitting his food right next to Blair, who stood there like a goof.
I would imagine the pull-out from Iraq will happen with our country too.

The withdrawl is actually 1500 troops within the next few days, plus a Blair proposal for a further 3000 withdrawn by the end of 2007 & all the remaining troops withdrawn by the end of 2008, if, as KD states "conditions permit".

But, these later putative withdrawls won't actually be up to Blair anyway, since he's retiring within a few months. Realistically the next PM, Gordon Brown is quite likely to withdraw all troops by mid-2008.

Zachary - it's important to remember re Blair's ongoing support for the Iraq invasion/ occupation, that the chief opposition party, the Conservatives are even more pro-American, more right wing & more pro-war. So, realistically, electorally, Balir's support for Bush & war didn't cost him as dearly as polls reflecting UK public disapproval for Iraq might suggest. The voters actually had no anti-war party to vote for. (Minor parties such as Liberals, independents, socialists etc don't have the numbers to form government.)

As for why Blair supported & continues to support, Bush so....(ahem) unreservedly, there are a few theories. (BTW the subject is actually quite widely discussed outside the US) The kindest of these is that Blair felt, by supporting Bush he could serve as a moderating influence against some of the more reckless & bellicose Bush advisors & influences.

A more cynical view is that Blair saw supporting the US as being in the UKs strategic & financial advantage, didn't think the war would last so long & even tho it has, is able to gamble on public disapporoval because he's resigning this year & there is no effective anti-war party.

The least flattering theory is that the intelligent, nuanced, articulate & married Blair has, like the US electorate, become somehow...entranced by the ignorant, affable, dyslexic, charismatic, incurious frat-boy & dry drunk Dubya, & now like US voters, having come to his senses, he's "waiting as fast as he can" for the romance-turned-nightmare to end.

Finally though, unlike Bush, Blair's already got an excellent legacy with many years of reforms & good governance (apart from Iraq) & he's probably right to assume that history will judge him kindly.

Correction: this from BBC world news:

1500 UK troops within weeks; additional 1500 home for Christmas, maybe sooner; all by Christmas 2008.

Must be that WWI misjudgement "It'll be over by Christmas!" Whoops. That's what they said this time too, didn't they.

Now Blair can say "See. It's as I said. All troops home by Christmas." Politicians!

We'll see.

..."A more cynical view is that Blair saw supporting the US as being in the UKs strategic & financial advantage, didn't think the war would last so long & even tho it has, is able to gamble on public disapporoval because he's resigning this year & there is no effective anti-war party..."
Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on February 21, 2007 at 12:02 AM

That gets my vote. The crucial point being the belief that the war would not last as long-simple as that. Staying with the script was to preserve his "legacy" just as GWB is stretching out our commitment until he can walk out of the White House and wash his hands of the mess.

Hold on DanJoaquinOz and Doc --

Actually there is mo effective PRO-war party. Both Brown and Cameron (heir-elect for Labour and Conservative leader, respectively) both voted for the war so don't want to debate it, but all except Blair (perhaps) are for bringing UK troops home as soon as possible. No one is outside that policy. Moreover fellow cabinet members are finally getting the courage (to preserve their seat) to rebel against Blair.

I'm pretty sure the troops are coming home sooner rather than later unless the Basra area blows up.

I won't bother debating DJO's various speculations but DJO should start reading UK papers.

Blair's legacy, like Bush's, is shot because of Iraq, and people aren't so keen on much he has done, or on his style of government, or on the number of housees he owns and how they ae financed, or on the cash-for-honors investigation.

He's hanging on to try to rewrite a legacy. It ain't going to happen.

Where do you get your stuff?

The British troops occupy the region most likely to become a military nightmare if the Shi'ites are seriously pissed off (Basra and the Marshes). Maybe Blair is just listening, for a change, to his generals (who have been openly howling for a pullout for two years -- remember they were promised a cakewalk and quick withdrawal in 2003)

Notthere: re: "DJO should start reading UK papers."

I read The Guardian, Observer & The Economist, plus a lot of specialty UK papers & mags. Like a lot of Australians, I keep up with UK press, BBC, CH 4 & have lots of friends & family there. My friends & family who live there don't agree with you (or eachother for that matter!) However, most of them think Blair has done a fairly good job overall & ALL believe he is the best PM in decades.

So that's, in part where I get my "stuff". I've also visited the UK 4 times in the last 6 years. Hopefully that qualifies me to have, & to post, an opinion.

(continued)
Notthere: "Blair's legacy like Bush's is shot because of Iraq & people aren't so keen on much he has done, or on his style of government, or on the number of housees he owns and how they ae financed, or on the cash-for-honors investigation.He's hanging on to try to rewrite a legacy. It ain't going to happen."

Question for notthere: Of the PM's serving over the last ...oh, say 40 years, which one(s) do you think, have a better legacy/have done a better job than Tony Blair? Edward Heath? Margaret Thatcher? John Major?

I'd say of the same period, unequivocally, that Bill Clinton, George Bush senior, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter & yes even Richard Nixon, all did vastly better jobs than Bush. Bush's is what I'd call a catastrophic legacy. Do you honestly think Blair is in a comparable category of disastrous leadership?

DJO, don't you worry about that.

This is really the end of the Bush-Blair axis. Bush and the British are said that the troops are leaving because the Shia south is relatively calm, but this is going on at the same time as Bush's 'surge' in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle.

Surely these British troops would be more usefully deployed there? At the very least they could be used to free up US units elsewhere in Iraq to concentrate on the hard fighting in Baghdad and Anbar.

It looks like the British don't think that Bush's 'surge' is worth supporting.

Though they might publicly agree that conditions in Basra and the south are different from Baghdad and the north and so say they understand and agree with what the British are doing, Bush and co are apparently livid about the reduction in British troop numbers at the time when the Americans are escalating - sorry - surging in Iraq. Blair is faced with the fact that the great majority of the British public, along with the opposition Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and the senior military, and many in his own cabinet, know the war is lost and that there is nothing that a few thousand overstretched British troops can do to rectify the situation. Howwever, he has to appear to be solidly supporting the Americans and knows that an immediate withdrawal would be in effect a declaration that the "surge" is a waste of time, manpower and money. Blair has to placate the critical Americans, so the British withdrawal from a lost battlezone is not really a withdrawal but in fact a recognition of victory achieved by the Coalition. An evil dictator has been eliminated, a nation freed, democracy established, and Iraqi security forces created that can ensure the survival of a free Iraq. And of course, there now are no weapons of mass destruction there threatening world peace.....

And yips at Obama aside, neither apparently does his upside-down poodle, John Howard (then again the Aussies have talked the talk but not walked the walk right from the get go - 0 fatalities due to combat; contrast that to 37 fallen Canadians in Afghanistan last year alone plus the full screws as opposed to the Aussie love-in cause we said 'no' to Iraq).

Blair: We don't support our troops so we are bringing them home.

Bush: Look, Blairs troops are leaving, we are winning the war! Look, a toilet flushed, we are winning the war. Look,...

Limbaugh: (insert any thought provoking substantial insight that will keep those ratings up)

Dr. Dobson: warned the GOP Christians and conservatives "will abandon them if they continue to ignore the most important issues." Which leaves him where?

The two moles removed from Shrub's forehead, Whinang and Bob, are two alien beings now returning to their Mother Ship with some very interesting insights.

Sure enough CNN is aggressively peddling the White House talking point: That this withdrawal is a sign of how well things are going!

Ummm...right. Heck of a job.

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

DJO --

Then I don't know where you get you ideas. Bit by bit:

Blair is a control freak and wants, as part of his "legacy", to set as much of the forward policy for the UK and, putitavely, Gordon Brown as possible. Naturally, this is being resisted.

The troops are coming home because the UK armed forces are way overstretched, Afgahn is the priority, and the army and the people need/want them out.

David Cameron has already professed that he will have a friendly but more independent and arms length realtionship with the US. Both Labour and the Conservatives have, since WWII, maintained as policy a strong relationship with the US, "bridging the Atlantic", only Blair has practically married himself to the US, Clinton and Bush.

In the last local elections Labour got slammed, narrowing their super-majority considerably. It was an anti-war vote and it went to the other parties.

Your speculations on why Blair went to war:

The first, "moderating influence" comes from Blair's own office, countering the poodle idea, but there's no evidence he has even when he has tried ("Tony, dude").

Strategically the UK has no military force to project independently so this only counts if US interests coincide which, for Blair, they might. Financially there is never an advantage in war, it is inherently destructive and costly. I don't think Blair ever considered splitting the spoils and the US certainly hasn't (rebuilding contracts, etc.) His continued support continues to cost him dearly because there is no anti-war party, the vaste majority of the country of all colours is anti the Iraq war.

He shows no sign of waking from a nightmare and is as stubborn as Bush in his rightness, also has a religious bent, too.

More likely, there is a similarity of world view and threat. I'll just give Blair the benefit of coming to it independently of the US neo-cons. For instance, he is completely differnt on the Palestine-Israel problem.

His legacy is crap because of Iraq; the proportions of that completely overpower any good he has done. I already listed a number of others to which I add how British society views the shift in income and reward, education, ASBOs, etc.

I'm not going to reference anything as you read the Guardian, Observer, and Economist, all good sources although the Economist this last few years has tended to publish some almost AEI-tripe articles, particularly on Iraq, climate change and technology trade.

I'll take it from your post on troop withdrawal figures you don't quite listen closely enough to what they say on the BBC.

Oh, and I'd rate Wilson, Heath, Thatcher and Major over Blair.