What if Blair hadn't gone poodle?

[Bragi]

Would Bush have invaded Iraq if Blair had done what he should have done, and opposed Bush's illegal and reckless invasion?

Personally, I doubt Bush could have invaded, since his alleged coalition of the willing would have consisted of the Solomon Islands and Oilistan, and not impressed anyone.

Instead, Blair became the big power enabler Bush needed. Which is why Blair is probably the most disappointing national leader of my lifetime.

Blair should have been a positive force, but he actually made Bush's war possible, all because he poodled out, which makes him a truly tragic figure.

- B

[bunkerbuster1]

1. One of several "liberal" enablers

We can thank the NYTimes, WaPo and New Republic for their Iraq war cheerleading as well.

But yeah, the Poodle sealed the deal.

[wake.up.america]

2. Blair accomplished a lot, but then screwed up big time - buying into the BS from Bush.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Bush would have invaded on his own.

Seriously, you think the few thousand troops Blair sent along would have changed a thing? The Coalition was a PR coup, but was not necessary to sell this war.

[Bragi]

4. I dunno about that...

US public opinion at the time was that ASmericans would support the war only if they could be convinced there was international support for it. Support was conditional, and Blair was key to propping up domestic US support for the war.

To be clear, I don't doubt that Bush would have wanted to invade on his own, but I'm not sure that events would have played out well for him on this without Blair. The fact that Bush knew for almost a year before the invasion that Blair would back him was crucial.

Not that we can ever know for sure, of course...

- B

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Really, while one country was nice,

you think Bush wouldn't have instead played up his relationship with Howard in Australia instead? Blair's backing was nice, but really, if Americans can be fooled into thinking that "a few dozen nonmilitary allies, Britain, Australia, Poland, and America" counts as world opinion, they can be fooled into thinking that "a few dozen nonmilitary allies, Australia, Poland and America" counts.

[Bragi]

9. Except this...

Without the UK, critics of the war would ahve been able to say "not a single major power supports an invasion."

The other thing is that Blair helped Bush finesse the UN. At the time, Americans did think that the invasion should not happen without UN support.

Blair helped Bush pretend that, while the UN did not actually support the invasion, they did not formally oppose it.

Without Blair, that would not have been possible, at least according to reknown foreign policy experts such as... ahhh... me.

- B

[Monk06]

12. Bush needed the Brits to take and hold Basra while US troops pressed for Baghdad

Without the Brits it would have been an
impossible sell politically and militarily.

[Odin2005]

5. Blair is a Wilsonian Interventionist that had delusions of grandeur.

Tony isn't a Neo-Con, but a left-wing Neo-Liberal Wilsonian, I think he was using the Neo-cons to fulfil is own grandiose schemes. He's basically Bill Clinton plus grandiose delusions.

[Bragi]

8. Agreed...

Blair's undoing was that he really did not understand Bush or American politics. He truly believed that if he backed the invasion, he could get Bush to do something sensible in the rest of the "war on terror" and in Palestine.

That was an incredibly stupid miscalculation really. He deserves the ignominy that history will no doubt bestow upon him.

- B

[Odin2005]

11. Exactly.

n/t

[enid602]

6. JimmyJeff

I think you should ask Gannon that question.

[AlCzervik]

10. Bush would have still had his war, the coalition a little smaller but it wouldn't

have changed his plans at all imo, they just would have it to sell it a little bit harder.