<Blair warned of the need to show Iraq a united front>
and
<poll showed that only 15 percent of Britons would back war without a U.N. mandate>
He sure has painted himself into a corner. He's committed himself, put his reputation and career on the line, and can't possibly find any face-saving way to back down now, even if he wanted to.
And he's right, a nation does need to be united when it goes to war, especially a democracy. It does strengthen the enemy's will to fight, when they see disunity, especially very public disunity. When the shooting starts, the fewest of our soldiers will die, if every Iraqi with a gun lays it down, when he sees an American or British soldier. So anything that helps the Iraqis means more American and British casualties. So it makes me very uncomfortable, to be be saying "No War!", as we go to war.
But Blair hasn't done what every leader of a democracy should do, before committing himself to war. He hasn't made sure the nation supports him. He may be sure, but that's not good enough, not in a democracy. In WWII, Rooseveldt didn't get the U.S. into the war, until we were attacked. There was total national unity after Pearl Harbor. You can make the argument that he should have led, not followed, public opinion, and got us into the war earlier, and things would have turned out better. But on an issue as important as war, a leader can't get very far in front of public opinion. And, with only 15% of Brits willing to go to war without a SC resolution, Blair is far, far out in front of public opinion.
So he and Bush have put all of us in a position of either supporting a war we don't believe in, or helping our nation's enemy as we go to war. |
