Korean Job Discussion Forums

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

For years, and on several threads, I've been trying without success to get a direct and specific, relevant response to the following question from all the anti-Iraq war crowd out there:

Why would Tony Blair, as the height of his popularity as British PM, in command of the Labour Party known for its pacifism and opposed ideologically to American conservatism, agree to let the UK armed forces join the coalition in Iraq?

C'mon, I dare ya. And trite quips like Blair wanted to be Georgie's poodle just won't cut the mustard.

thepeel · Joined: 08 Aug 2004

He did it because he thought that an America without the UK as an partner was substantially more dangerous than an America with English help. In addition, he was honoring a long tradition of UK/USA military alliance.

Scouse Mouse · Joined: 07 Jan 2007 Location: Cloud #9

I honestly believe that he was provided with misleading information by the USA. Despite his faults, Blair has been a great PM and has always let his conscience decide how he should respond to things. It was his belief at the time of the invasion that he was doing the right thing.

Despite what has happened since, Blair also reaslises that we now have an obligation to finish the job. If he turned to the UK people and said "I was wrong, now all of our troops will be home by the end of February" his popularity would rocket... but he can not do that knowing that Iraq is in such a terrible state at the moment, so he sucks up the criticism and wants to stay until the Iraqi people have some stability.

Remember that Blair tried everything he could to find a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem before he commited any troops. He was the only moderate voice that had the ear of Bush at a time when Bush was going all out for blood. Even now he describes the US as a "difficult friend" - he does not agree with Bush, but he realises that the influence he has (no matter how small that influence may be) is a good thing, and something he should nurture.

ddeubel · Joined: 20 Jul 2005

I think the answer is very clear and has been stated by many who posted previously on this topic.

Of further note is how Blair continued to lie to Brits, even as evidence became known that he had clearly committed Britain to war, even just weeks after 9/11. Lots of questions which he has never come clean about, regarding how he clearly misled his govt and his people. I think Blair's buddy buddy "special relationship" played a big part. he also has something of the drama / moral queen in him. A wish to be seen as the moral compass of his people. Very queer now in retrospect.

But the fact of the matter is as this very well written article attests,

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/gear01_.html

Blair thought it would all be a clean, nice, tidy deal. He bought GWB's lies, just as the American people did. As the leaked memo of a meeting well before the war, Bush said categorically that the war wouldn't lead to any internecine tribal or ethnic warfare. Blair bought it.

regicide · Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States

You can read about Blair's troubles and possible motivation here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8683

cbclark4 · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan

jaganath69 · Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Neil · Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Location: Tokyo

Even pre Blair, old Labour supported both the war in Vietnam and the 1st gulf war.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

My own theory is that Blair, for all his telegenic intellectualism, is just as dumb as Bush is reputed to be, at least in the area of common sense. So he probably did in fact get duped by the whole WMD fraud, just like all those trailer-trash Americans did.

As for why Labour went along with it: Blair's the guy who brought them back to power after two decades of going absolutely nowhere. So they're probably not gonna wanna burn their ticket to the soup kitchen. Either that, or they're just as gullible as he is.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Oh, and here's the repsonse McGarret was probably hoping for...

As a leftist, I always thought that the British Labour Party was the zenith of multiculturalism, intellectualism, and moral imperative. I cannot understand how they could in any way be supporting the same policies advocated by declasse individuals like Rush Limbaugh. This is such an affront to my worldview that I am thinking of renouncing forever my allegiance to the left. Honestly, I don't know how I can go on living.

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

Here's the truth: power and money fanned by fear-mongering.

Here's the short answer: He's an idiot.

Here's the best answer: SteveMcGarret is a troll.

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

On the other hand wrote:

crazy_arcade · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

because he's a sell out and it's a feeble attempt to hold onto the last crumb of British power. furthermore, if you knew your history then you'd know that the British Empire is responsible for the mess that is the Middle East. Of course, you don't know your history.

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

crazy arcade:

Oh, I see, I don't know my history and you will of course point out the many ways that is so.* Yes, Blair is trying to reinvigorate the British presence in the MidEast. And he rubs the pate on the bust of T.E. Lawrence in the parlour at 10 Downing Street on his way to Parliament.

Again, you've offered nothing substantive; just another accusation. Typical leftist fare, to be sure.

*I hold an MFA in Creative Writing, an M.A. in History (modern era), and a Ph.D in Applied Linguistics, all from top universities. Other than that, I don't know much, darn it.

mithridates · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:45 am Post subject:

I assume the reasons would be similar to the ones that the other European leaders who supported the war had, but on a larger scale. It's a tough decision because it's a gamble on the success of the war - if it had worked out well ("six days, six weeks, I doubt six months") then they would have contributed to a new and modern Iraq while the countries that opposed it would be there with egg on their face. If the UK were one of the main architects of such a big success, all the better for them.

I agree with OTOH, by the way - taking a gamble such as this one wasn't the brightest idea and it does show a lack of wisdom (not education, common sense). Colin Powell's another one who I like but seemed to have gotten pushed into doing something he wasn't all that into against his well and I assume he regrets that (the speech at the UN). I would still vote for him if I were American though.