--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be silly, but it does seem to reflect the
> popular opinion better
> than the leaders who support the US. What I read
> indicates that Blair may
> lose his position as Prime Minister if push comes to
> shove and there is a
> war without UN sponsorship. Do you think this is
> unlikely, and if so, why?
> If it doe happen, won't it accentuate the US/Europe
> rift? How far could
> such a rift go?
>
> Dan M.
I don't think he's in any real danger of losing his
position, really. First, because there's no logical
successor to him in the Labor Party that I can see,
and the Conservatives are (to be kind) a joke.
Second, because I don't think that British opinion is
nearly as opposed to war as most of the press is
saying (see a series of posts on Instapundit on that
topic). And third, and most importantly, because I
think that the war will go well and be very, very
short. Unless something astonishing happens (Bush
chooses to go in October instead of late March, which
is possible, but unlikely) we are likely to be running
Iraq in ~2 weeks of beginning the war, and probably
within about ~1 week of beginning the ground campaign.
Such a campaign would, I think, have a transformative
effect on public opinion in Britain at least, and
probably in the rest of Europe as well. If (as I
think probable) we see American soldiers arriving in
Baghdad greeted as liberators, with Iraqis dancing in
the streets in celebration - something that we _did_
see in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the _very
same people_ opposing the war told us:
1. It would be a military disaster ("Afghanistan, the
breaker of empires!") and
2. The Afghani people would hate us ("The hardened
guerrilla fighters of Afghanistan..."
How will public opinion in Britain change when those
scenes are shown on the BBC? When Iraqi political
prisoners freed by American soldiers testify about how
they were tortured? When Iraqi government files
testifying to WMD testing and development are
discovered? That is what will save Tony Blair, if he
is in danger.
If it _does_ happen, I think it will accentuate the
US/Europe rift, but I'm not sure how much it matters
in the short term, and I'm not sure how permanent that
rift will be in the long term. In the short term,
Blair's fall might intensify our tendency to think of
ourselves as basically alone as global policemen, and
will probably intensify our tendency to think of the
French as our enemies. Both of these are fairly
accurate portrayals of the world as it is, so I'm not
certain that they're such bad things. Over the long
run, if Europe is forced to actually _do_ something,
as opposed to criticize us - presumably what would
happen if US power went into eclipse for the brief
period that would follow - it's possible that Europe
would actually grow up and start acting like adults.
Not likely, but possible. In either case, I think the
odds of Blair falling are so low that I'm not even
considering the possibility much. It's not Bush and
Blair who are in a corner, but Chirac and Schroeder,
who have staked their political survival on a
catastrophically failed campaign in Iraq. Betting
against the success of the American military has been,
for the last 20 years or so, an extremely stupid bet.
The odds are, I think, that it will be again.
Gautam
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
