Frank Millar assesses reaction in Britain to the Prime Minister's readiness to pay a 'blood price' in Iraq
The British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, arrives in Washington for the Camp David summit this afternoon to the increasingly loud, seemingly insistent drumbeat of war with Iraq. But as he confirms his readiness to pay a "blood price" for the Anglo-American relationship, the British Labour leader leaves behind a gathering army of critics who would like to have his.
Throughout a long August of apparent Washington confusion, Labour's anti-war party was able to make the running at Westminster. Extending beyond "the usual suspects", a coalition of former ministers atop a powerful body of back-bench MPs, bishops and trade union leaders might nearly have convinced themselves they had already won the battle for the hearts and minds of the British public.
With anti-war resolutions threatened at next week's TUC Congress and next month's Labour Party conference, a staggering 71 per cent of people surveyed by ICM this week said they would oppose military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein without the explicit approval of the United Nations.
In the dog days of summer, however, it always seemed a phoney war. And any suspicion the rising tide of Labour revolt would stop Mr Blair in his tracks was brutally washed away by his Sedgefield press conference on Tuesday.
There - a model of quiet determination, almost understated, without recourse to the high emotion sometimes his hallmark - Mr Blair counted the US right to challenge Iraq's non-compliance with existing UN resolutions, and the "anti-Americanism" of his opponents dangerous and wrong. Of course, the UN should be the route to deal with the unique threat posed by Mr Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction. But it could not be the instrument of delay or inaction. Yes, it would be better to do this with the widest possible international support: "But it does have to be done." Nor was Mr Blair - unabashed at depictions of himself as the President's "poodle" - simply acting out of blind loyalty to the US. The United Kingdom's national interests were engaged here, as they were after September 11th, even though those terrorist atrocities were perpetrated thousands of miles away: "And if September 11th teaches us anything, it teaches us the importance of not waiting for the threat to materialise but when we see the signs of that threat in front of us, dealing with it." With that nod towards Washington's doctrine of "pre-emption" - and a clear signal that "regime change" in Iraq could easily become the goal of British foreign policy - Mr Blair seemed to make his intentions pretty clear.
His comments for a BBC documentary to be broadcast tomorrow will surely dispel any lingering doubts. Asked if he agreed with a member of President Lyndon Johnson's cabinet, who said Britain has to pay a "blood price" to make the "special relationship" work, Mr Blair replies: "Yes. What's important, too, is that at that moment of crisis they don't need to know simply that you're giving general expressions of support and sympathy. They need to know . . . when the shooting starts, are you prepared to be there?" Asked if he could stop the US attacking Iraq if he disagreed with the policy, Mr Blair says: "I would never back America if I thought they were doing something wrong. But I've never found that and I don't expect to find it in the future." If and when the shooting starts, then, the Prime Minister will be there for the President. Will the Labour Party be there for Mr Blair? The answer would seem to be "Yes."
Unquestionably the scale of opposition is significant, and war could prove the lightning conductor for assorted discontents with the "New Labour" project. But the instinct for loyalty once troops are committed - not to mention the size of the government payroll vote - would seem to make it unlikely that Mr Blair could end up dependent on the Conservatives for a Commons majority. Moreover the scale of opposition could be swiftly diminished if President Bush and Mr Blair agree to seek fresh cover from the UN.
Crucially, Number 10 calculates debate until now focused on the dangers of action will increasingly turn to the dangers of inaction. Mr Blair's aides can also console themselves that he faced similar opposition over Kosovo and Afghanistan, and emerged triumphant.
As one war-sceptic said last night: "You can never discount the possibility of St Tony walking down Baghdad High Street next Easter to the plaudits of grateful Iraqis." That thought should be enough to sustain Mr Blair on the flight to Washington.