President Bush seems resigned to the role of Will Kane, the
determined lawman in High Noon left by the cowardly
townfolk to fight alone against the outlaws. Almost unanimously,
our allies are saying “what, me worry?” in response to Dubya’s
calls to join the coming war against Saddam, The only notable
exception has been Britain’s Tony Blair. Mr. Blair’s almost
Churchillian stance against terror has faded of late, due to the
lack of public support for American action. Now, Blair’s own party
is on the verge of forcing Britain to sit this one out.
Mr. Blair’s Labour Party government appears to be far stronger
and more stable than most. He enjoys a parliamentary majority of
about 180 seats, nearly double the number that Mrs. Thatcher had.
He has been in office longer than the leader of any other major
Western power, and seems safe from challenge by the near-comatose
Conservative Party. From that considerable power base, he was able
to act quickly and decisively when we lit up Afghanistan. Without
the British fleet — of airborne tankers, that is — our air power
would have been severely limited by the inadequacy of our own
airborne refueling capability. As a result, the Afghanistan
campaign would have been longer and more costly. Now Blair is
caught between three demanding allies: British labor unions,
America and the European Union. The conflicting pressures have
forced him into the Hamlet-like “yes, I will, no, I won’t” role he
now plays. And things may get worse very soon.
Next month’s Labour Party annual conference is reportedly going
to be a showcase for the British lefties’ opposition to a war
against Saddam’s regime. Blair can fight against those resolutions
in his own party conference, but the ball game may be over by the
time that conference begins. Before the Labour Party meets, the
British Trades Union Congress will hold its own convention, and
opponents of the Iraq campaign are stacking the deck to produce a
major problem for Mr. Blair. What the Trades Union Congress
decides, the Labour Party will almost certainly have to follow.
According to the London Times, the heads of nine
leading trade unions agreed that there is no evidence that Saddam
has weapons of mass destruction or is a threat to the U.S. The
report said that a letter saying just that was drawn up by the head
of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, who also plans to call
on Blair to withhold support for the Iraq war. Resolutions taking
positions against the war will be debated and voted on. This sets
the stage for a very high-risk game that may decide if Britain will
support the Iraq campaign. In the Trades Union Congress, the
discussion will be emotional, demagogic, and dangerous. How could
this situation get any worse? I’ll give you only one guess.
Last seen grabbing a rifle and heading for the Israeli front
lines (or not), the guy who sent our military into action more
often, with less justification and to less result than any modern
president, the man whose contempt for our troops led to the
incidents portrayed in Blackhawk Down, Lil’ Billy is going
to Blackpool to speak to the Trades Union Congress. (There is no
word of the speaking fee he will be paid, or how many young women
his hosts have arranged to be within easy reach.) The only thing we
can be sure of is that Mr. Clinton will declaim against any idea of
attacking Saddam, and state conclusively that the solution to
Saddam is containment, not war.
Mr. Blair is also being pressured heavily by his European Union
“partners” to keep Britain out of the fight. The EU pressure is
significant, because Mr. Blair’s popularity at home depends, in
large part, on trade relations with the EU. Ignoring EU pressure
could result in many kinds of retaliation against British goods and
services crossing the Channel. Mr. Blair has, so far, rejected
advice of some in his own party to recall Parliament to debate the
war. Faced with the trade union opposition, the EU problem, and the
meddling of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Blair needs help from this side of the
Atlantic.
When I last visited Britain in April, I saw the need for a
presidential
visit to bolster British support. Many active and retired
British military leaders were — and still are — justifiably
uncertain of our intentions, and of how we value their counsel.
What was advisable in April is urgent and essential now. If Mr.
Blair would recall Parliament for an address by Mr. Bush before the
Trades Union Congress convenes, much of the damage it — and Bill
Clinton — will otherwise cause can be pre-empted.
The president needs to do a better job of convincing America and
the world of the need to liberate Iraq. Before going to England, he
should make an address to Congress and the American people, even if
he has to call Congress back from recess to do it in time. After
that, the British Parliament is a grand stage on which our case
should be made. He can tell the world why we need to fight, and
what we expect to achieve, in the coming war. The president should
call Mr. Blair right away. In that call, the president should
propose the speech, and assure Mr. Blair that in it, he will work
to strengthen the alliance we used to call the “Special
Relationship.”
The speech should be a milestone in our war against terror, one
that marks the resurgence of the alliance that led the world
against the original Axis of Evil sixty years ago. If Mr. Bush
doesn’t make this speech, and sway British opinion, Britain may not
be with us in the fight to liberate Iraq. Without our British
airborne gas stations, our air power will be limited severely.
Without their special operations troops, targets that should be
destroyed in the first minutes of the war have a greater chance of
slipping past our guys. These are not risks we should allow to
arise. We shouldn’t take the Brits for granted, Mr. President. Go
to London. Make the speech. Lead, and the world will follow.
