It is obvious that Blair cares more about doing what’s right than what the pollsters say. When the war in Iraq is done and the newly free Iraqi people are able to live without Saddam oppressing them, the world will come around with their support. I bet you will even see the French and Germans clamoring to get in on the liberation action. Some people govern on principles rather than what they think the best political strategy is. The Democrats might be taken more seriously in they weren’t such a finger in the wind, no spine bunch of neigh sayers.

The situation in the UK remains more fluid than this poll indicates.
Blair doesn't necessarily have to have another vote in parliament before British troops engage on the ground.
Even if there were another such vote, the Conservative leadership is still backing the war (indeed they keep complaining that Blair has not backed Bush forthrightly enough.) The Lib Dems are taking a more forceful stance and it is being noticed by the media but they remain the third party. The outcome is going to depend on three things - will the Conservative backbenchers split from the leadership? (many of them are on record as being against the war without an additional resolution, and lukewarm even then). Will enough labour backbenchers turn against Blair? And, most importantly, will cabinet ministers, particularly Clare Short actually resign this time. This last is especially crucial because Short is the last outspoken voice for the left wing within Cabinet and her departure, if it occurred, would have important psychological effects.
Obviously, all these occurences will depend on exactly how war comes about. Even if they do, I am no longer convinced even then, that Blair will take any notice. He seems ever more out of touch. One speculative thought - the loudest voices in the labour party against his policy are coming from the old left. This is traditionally the group that Blair has derided and sought to defeat at every turn - indeed it would be fair to say that if the old left opposes a policy it is almost certain to get increased backing from Blair and company. In this may lie at least a partial explanation for his refusal to even enter debate with those opposed to war.

"...the newly free Iraqi people are able to live without Saddam oppressing them..."

And what about the women in Saudi Arabia?

wllk, your high ethos of invasionary practice applies only unfriendly fundy dictatorships, and for that reason, is ethically bankrupt.
http://www.windsor-brooke.com/PrincessTrilogy.htm

Very Likely Scenario: Bush will invade Iraq, and fight a 72-hour war. Many civilians will be killed, $80 billion will be spent, including mobilization, and Saddam will go into exile or die. It'll make the conservative press feel good to "By God,kick butt", and Bush's popularity will return to the mid-70's... but that doesn't mean the war is right.

Bush must follow the Biblical example of the peacemeaker, like Carter at Camp David in September '78. Carter coaxed Egypt's Sadat and Israel's Begin to hammer out an agreement, averting war. Though there have been suicide bombers and violence since then, there hasn't been a war. Carter slept an hour a night over a ten day period finding a way toward peace. Bush must do the same thing. But Bush isn't a peacemaker at heart. He doesn't have the understanding or commitment Carter had. Bush wants a war, and by golly, he's gonna start one.

Dad of 6--Not only do I not think that's a "very likely scenario", it's also very incomplete. Timing of an invasion is a key element to its affect on the 2004 election. If it does turn out to be a 72-hour war--and I think that highly unlikely--and it occurs sometime in the next couple months, that leaves Dubya in a similar position his father was in--having over a year in which a faltering economy could sink those high post-war approval ratings. Another key element your scenario omits is what happens afterward, both in terms of the stability of a post-Saddam Iraq as well as whether such a war would unleash greater Arab hostility toward the US and resulting terrorist attacks.

As for Blair, IMO he's been playing the good cop to France/Germany's bad cop. Perhaps Blair believes, and with good reason, that he has more chance of influencing Bush if he's close to him. Just as Colin Powel is the voice of moderation within the Administration, or internal voice, Blair can be seen as the external voice of moderation (not opposition). Perhaps I just want to believe that Blair is too smart to actually believe that full-scale war is the best viable solution to Saddam.

Opinion is divided on what kind of resistance Coalition forces would face from the Iraqi Army. My sense is that the Coalition's military advantage would be so great that the war would be as FoS convincingly argues, of short duration. However, the exit strategy remains the problem - and I think Blair's cause would be greatly served if he moved on from his repeated assertions of Saddam Hussein's moral shortcomings (great though these undoubtedly are) and begin talking about how to shape an Iraq post Saddam and his Ba'ath Party.

Moreover, Blair and Bush must stop undermining the Weapons Inspectors, and by extension, the United Nations. By repeatedly stressing, as he did in the Commons yesterday during PMQs, that there may be a cause for war even if the Inspectors are satisfied, Blair reveals his contempt for the UN. Why? Well, he argues that not only must the Inspectors be satisfied, but Hussein must be cooperating with the UN also. Is it not the job of the Inspectors to judge how helpful the Iraqis have been? Surely they are the one's to know whether they are facing a compliant or recalcitrant regime? This is the flaw in Blair's logic. If he can convincingly argue that he is better qualified than Hans Blix to judge the Iraqi attitude, and put forward an intelligent and workable blueprint for a post-Ba'ath Iraq, then Blair may win popular support in the UK for war.

He can't do the former, and he has made no public attempt to do the latter. I think Alistair Campbell is letting things slide.

Bragan,

The only way I can see a war with Iraq lasting longer than 72 hours is if Saddam accepts that massive Coalition advantages in air-power, hardware etc. will swiftly destory him in the open desert, and decides to hole up in Baghdad. Then you have to wonder whether the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Cabinet are so loyal to Saddam that they are prepared to be buried with him (and plenty of Coaltion troops) in a battle through the streets of Baghadad.

WLLK's assertion that Blair/Bush are going after Iraq as some kind of magnanimous human rights gesture is utterly laughable. Since when did this administration ever give a hoot for human rights? It's ready to shred plenty of rights at home, caring only to prop up its big corporate contributors. Hey, WLLK, I hear North Korea's got a nasty dictator who keeps his people under his thumb. So, when is our fearless leader going to depose him?

Baghdad* It would help if I learnt to spell! ;)

72 hour war? Not a chance. Even Gulf War I, fought under much more favorable conditions and for a much more limited objective, took 100 hours.

UK Student--For an example of why a war in Iraq would last longer than 72-hours, examine the battle for Afghanistan. In that the opposition was a much weaker force, and our allies the Northern Alliance was more capable than the opposition in Iraq. Granted, that was a different battle, but it lasted much longer than 3 days, and even now Afghanistan remains far from stable. The "only if" scenario that you suggest--having to engage in bloody urban warfare to extract Saddam and those troops that remain loyal to him--seems more likely to me than a mass capitulation. Hawks often point to how quickly Iraqi units surrendered during the Gulf War, but they fail to mention that those units weren't the Republican Guard and that they were defending captured territory, not their homeland and capital. (BTW, don't sweat the small stuff. This isn't a term paper. A few misspellings and typos are part of any blog's terrain, particularly in comment posts.)

Bragan,

I entirely agree with you regarding Afghanistan's continuing insecurity - it wouldn't surprise me at all if al-Quaeda was still highly active up in those mountains. It seems to me that the various warlords now pay very nominal homage to Hamid Karzai, rather than the Taleban.

I would argue, though, that Afghanistan took as long as it did because the Coalition allowed the Northern Alliance to do the bulk of the fighting, once they were properly equipped and supplied. American and European regulars might have brought the conflict to an end sooner, but would have had to endure greater casualties. In my opinion, the Coalition traded a quicker (I don't think anyone thought Afghanistan would be quick, given the two British invasions of the C19th and the Soviet Invasion of the 1980s) victory for fewer Coalition casualties. Judging by the amount of men and materiel now arriving in the Gulf, almost daily, it seems like, the Coalition (such as it now is) has decided that they cannot rely on Iraqi resistance groups as they did with the Northern Alliance, and will largely use their own soldiers this time, and are willing to accept casualties.

I think it reasonable to suggest that the much less difficult terrain of Iraq had a major influence on the Coalition decision to use Coalition troops, if this comes to war.

Urban warfare would be a nightmare for everybody concerned - the mere chance that it might unfold is yet another compelling reason for not pre-empting the Weapons Inspectors.

CNN was looping some film of American soldiers practicing urban warfare, and I had a revelation: these guys aren't very good at it. There's not a chance that the U.S. will fight in Baghdad or any other city. They will flatten it first. Even if they *were* well trained, and completely crushed the enemy, the nature of the fighting would produce thousands of casualties, and that is something the Bush currently wouldn't be able to take politically.

Britons and other Europeans will balk at a war in Iraq as long as there are growing public doubts here in the U.S.

According to administration officials, Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union will turn public opinion around--one official said "turn the tide". So much for Bush (once again!) cleverly exceeding low expectations-- on Jan. 28, he faces a high bar. But he'll probably succeed. The post-speech press analysis (Fox, CNN, CNBC) will marvel at how well Bush delivered his speech. Bush will probably end his speech with the words "..and let's roll!" and the networks will gasp at how eloquent Bush is. Public opinion will probably sway towards war after Jan. 28...we'll see if the Europeans follow suit.

Father of Six,

It will have to be one hell of a speach to accomplish all that. It will be interesting to see how his approval ratings move around in the next couple weeks.

Whats significant is that the americans that support this war are so timid about it, this is obvious when you view different polling questions. I feel there is a good 40 percent of Americans who are really pissed off about this war and they probably won't change there mind no matter how it goes.

The chickenhawks who like to point to the Iraqi collapse in the Gulf War as proof of how easy this war will be are not very knowledgable. What they leave out:

1: The units who surrendered en masse in 1991 were largely filled with conscripts who were poorely trained, equipped and supplied and had no real reason to fight. Plus, many were Shiites who hate Saddam.

2: The soliders were fighting to defend captured territory and so did not have much enthusiasm for the fight. Fighting to defend your home leads to great enthusiasm, especially since many Iraqis appear to think of us as invading imperialists.

3: The Iraqi National Guard did fight and fought hard. They took some nasty casulties retreating, but most of them escaped intact. There are over 100,000 of them still, well-equipped, supplied, and dead-loyal to Saddam, since they know their perks and well-being would vanish if he were gone. If they are waiting for us in Baghdad and other major cities, they will make it a bloody mess for us.

4: The U.S. is not very good at urban warfare. Remember Somalia in 1993? Expect something similar, bloodier and one a much larger scale if the war comes to that.

First of all, it will not be a 72 hour war. It will take weeks to conclude because we have to occupy Baghdad, a city of seven million people. We cannot do that without Iraqi cooperation and leaving most of the government in place.

Second, the Iraqi Army is 400,000 and there may be another 200,000 AK-47 armed militia and civilians. We cannot assume that these people will want to be occupied by US troops. Everyone sees Saddam and that's only part of the equation.

Remember, he killed to get in power and expects to die in power. But in the last 10 years, he's built mosques and bought the loyalty of the Imams. They could very well lead the resistance to the US, regardless of Saddam's health.

The units who surrendered in the Gulf War, and I'm surprised people have forgotten this, were reservists who fought the Iranians. And they were bombed for a month. The Iraqis expected to fight from fixed positions, and even in Kuwait, some did fight.

The minute we threaten the oilfields, Saddam may well blow them. Then, he may well shoot the experts who ran them. Let's see the US fix that mess qucikly.

The war doesn't get any better than this and may wind up with the nightmare scenario: Kuwaitis attack US supply lines on orders of Al Qaeda, Iranian radicals attack US ships, rioting breaks out in Bahrain and Qatar. All within 24 hours.

It's not that the US isn't good at Urban Warfare, but that we haven't done it in a while. And every exercise shown has platoons losing 5 men every hour. There are 40 men in an airborne platoon. and about 27 in an armored platoon.

This may seem a question of dying for Saddam. It may turn into a question of dying for Iraq. Not the same at all.

Bragan -
Re. the Blair as good cop routine. I think this is the role Blair wishes the public to believe he is playing, and, has probably deceived himself into believing.
It is reminiscent of a domestic political relationship prior to the '97 election. The then lib dem leader Ashdown convinced himself that a co-alition with Blair was on the cards, and that Blair would implement all sorts of lib dem policies - I think this was partly the result of cosy meetings at that hub of power number 10 - substitute rounds of applause in Congress and many private meetings with Mr President, and I think you have a similar scenario.
I have wondered for some time what might have happened if Blair had taken a firmer public line (even if only now) along the lines taken by France and Germany. It strikes me that at the top of every list of allies produced by the Bush Administration is Britain - imagine if he could no longer say that - I think the effect on public opinion in America, and Bush's ability to go it alone might be significant.

Er, I agree with the sentiment, but don't we mean to say that these world leaders are acting like Hugh Grant in the back seat of the car with Divine Brown? I'm so confused.

"So, what the hell is Blair thinking? Sure, he's got a few years before an election, but still-- Bush is going to try and go it alone, without the UN approval, and then what's for Blair to do?"

Maybe he isn't thinking politically. In fact, all the way along I've felt that Blair's surprisingly strong support for action against Iraq is proof that the whole thing is not a farce. Blair has nothing to gain politically from this, especially as a member of the Labour Party. Conversely, he has everything to lose if he irresponsibly does nothing, and jeopardises the security of the British people.

This is a point that the opposition should consider as they rant and rave about President Bush's "phony war".