Comment
In his name, but not in his hands
The conduct and course of this conflict, which is so crucial to
the Prime Minister, is already largely out of Tony Blair's control
Andrew Rawnsley
Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer
When Tony Blair was shaken out of his sleep in the small hours of the
morning to be told that the war was about to begin, it was a doubly rude
awakening. This war may be conducted in the name of a deeply divided Britain,
it may involve the bravery and professionalism of thousands of British
servicemen and women, its prologue may have been the most traumatic episode
in the career of this British Prime Minister, but he is not calling the
shots. He may only get to learn which shots are being fired when an American
finger has already squeezed the trigger.
Downing Street is understandably sensitive that the Prime Minister was
informed of the missile strike to assasinate Saddam Hussein only after
the Americans had made the decision. Had his opinion been sought, Ministers
say that Mr Blair would have signed off on the attempt to 'decapitate'
the Iraqi dictatorship. That doesn't mitigate the embarrassment of such
an early disclosure that control over the conduct of this conflict is
already largely out of his hands.
George Bush further highlighted that brutal reality when, with typically
crashing insensitivity to how his words play beyond his own domestic audience,
the President broadcast to America that the invasion had begun 'on my
orders', as if he had either forgotten the presence in the desert of so
many British troops or he was casually usurping ownership of them.
This is an American war to an American plan executed by an American four-star
general. You will hear British Ministers fending off questions about exactly
what is happening in Iraq on the grounds that they do not want to jeopardise
the safety of the forces by providing running commentaries on the conflict.
When they stonewall in this fashion, it may not be right to assume that
they are being deliberately economical with the truth. Ministers may not
be able to answer questions about the conflict because they themselves
are hazy about what is going on. The fog of war also envelops them.
Our government may not even possess a knowledge of events that is much
more up to date or precise than the war junkie consuming the conflict
from rolling TV news. Geoff Hoon as good as admitted to MPs that he was
getting some of his information from the television. He told Newsnight
on Friday, 'I am no military expert', which was honest, if perhaps not
advisable. It is bit of a handicap for a Defence Secretary not to be a
military expert when dealing with those who are.
Information is always power; never is information more powerful than in
a war. Generals hate giving politicians the opportunity to second guess
them. Even more so do they loathe involving the politicians of another
country, even when that country is their staunchest ally. The moment that
Tony Blair put British forces under overall American command was the moment
when he lost much of his say over how this war would be fought.
This is a corrective to any idea that the Prime Minister cleared his final
Iraqi hurdle when he secured a majority in the Commons in favour of military
action. It was a gamble - as it turned out, a well-judged gamble - for
Tony Blair to set the precedent of seeking parliamentary sanction for
war. On the eve of the vote, the Prime Minister looked to be in extremely
serious trouble. Not because the vote was ever going to be lost when the
bulk of Conservative MPs would support the Government. The threat to Mr
Blair was the moral defeat that he might suffer at the hands of his own
side.
Hysterical whips dashed around the corridors warning Labour MPs that if
a majority of them voted against the war they would bring down the leader
who has won them two successive landslides - which was quite possible
- and even collapse the Government - which was total nonsense. This Westminster
version of 'shock and awe' was designed to frighten the wobblier anti-warriors
into supporting the Prime Minister.
It also reflected a genuine fear within Number 10 that Mr Blair's authority
could be destroyed by his own party. To grasp just how precarious he thought
his position might be, you only had to look at the relief which gasped
out of the Prime Minister's face when Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip,
told him that the rebel numbers had been capped at 140. In any other context,
it would be a bizarre sort of 'triumph' for Mr Blair to suffer the biggest-ever
backbench rebellion against a Prime Minister of modern times. But these
times are not normal.
He was aided to his parliamentary victory by his own impressive speech
along with the crude but effective black propaganda campaign to blame
the war on the French, which also helped precipitate movement in the polls
in favour of war. He also correctly read the gutlessness of much of his
party. When he stared Labour MPs in the whites of their eyes, they chickened
first.
The lowest point of Mr Blair's week was when Robin Cook resigned and delivered
a fairly deadly dismemberment of the Prime Minister's arguments for this
war at this time. For a few hours, Mr Blair's fate could have dangled
in the hands of Clare Short. Had the International Development Secretary
also gone, it was possible that a double resignation of Cabinet Ministers
would have opened the floodgates and swept the Prime Minister away.
By breaking her promise to quit, she helped to negate the effect of Robin
Cook, her spectacular non-resignation making his resignation less sensational.
The rebels lost heart and momentum, which is why they spit so savagely
about her. Ms Short turned herself into a human shield for the Prime Minister.
Literally so: when she arrived for the debate, she was told to move up
the frontbench to sit beside the Prime Minis ter so that Mr Blair could
display his prisoner of war for the edification of wavering MPs.
What needs to be remembered is that this victory in the parliamentary
battlefield is only the beginning of Mr Blair's war. His future remains
contingent on events on the ground in Iraq, events over which he now has
limited influence. Mr Blair may be able to apply his artful charm to defang
difficult Cabinet Ministers. His whips could crunch bones while his wife
wooed female MPs with tears and sympathy. The American generals running
this war are not susceptible to any threats or blandishments at the disposal
of the British Prime Minister.
Number 10 will be keen to stress that Mr Blair is being consulted at all
times. We will be told that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary
are paying particularly careful attention when there are issues about
targets which risk a high loss of civilian life.
The truth is that the British capacity to veto the Pentagon is not great.
During the war to liberate Kosovo, Mr Blair was advised that it might
be considered a breach of the Geneva conventions to attack the headquarters
of Serbian TV. British planes could not be involved. The Americans went
ahead and did it anyway, killing an innocent make-up lady and blameless
technicians.
To avoid the large civilian casualties that would undermine Mr Blair's
assertion that there is a moral basis for this conflict, he is relying
on the boast of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, that that this
will be the most precise war in human history. American technology is,
indeed, more precise, but it still only 90 per cent precise. When 1,500
missiles and bombs are unleashed in 24 hours, that suggests 150 of them
are going to devastate something other than their intended target.
There will be times when the Government is as much in the dark about what
is going on as the rest of us. When the Americans were so disastrously
imprecise during the Kosovo war that they hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade,
the then British Defence Secretary, George Robertson, first learnt about
it from a news bulletin on his car radio. He said to himself: 'Oh, shit.'
I imagine words like that were used in Number 10 on Friday when they saw
the pictures of an American soldier raising the Stars and Stripes over
a captured building in Iraq. Any symbols of conquest are very harmful
to Mr Blair's case for this conflict.
For George Bush, this war is relatively simple. He wants a victory. Tony
Blair requires something much more sophisticated than a victory. He needs
a decent victory. The Anglo-American forces must emerge from this not
as the imperialists condemned by much of the world but as the liberators
they claim to be.
For Mr Blair, it is critical that this war is swift and light on casualties.
On that depends the skill and judgment of the American lords of war and
the resilience of Saddam's regime. Along with the futures of so many other
people, Mr Blair is in the hands of General Tommy Franks and the Special
Republican Guard.
a.rawnsley@observer.co.uk |
