How did Tony Blair get into Iraq?

Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former Communications Chief has written his memoirs, and some of what he has written has been published in "The Age" from Australia. Here is an excerpt:

FORMER British prime minister Tony Blair pressed ahead with the invasion of Iraq without betraying any uncertainty even to his closest colleagues, all of whom had "severe moments of doubt", his former communications chief, Alastair Campbell, has revealed.

Campbell records how one of Mr Blair's staunchest allies, John Reid, and the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, looked "physically sick" when cabinet met on March 17, 2003, the day before the Commons vote to endorse the war.

Mr Reid, then party chairman, "said never underestimate the instincts for unity and understand that we will be judged by the Iraq that replaces Saddam's Iraq, and by the Middle East", Campbell wrote in the first publication of extracts from his long-awaited, but heavily edited, diaries.

Like Bush, Blair's legacy is going to be the War and Occupation of Iraq. On this side of the pond it seems reasonably clear by now that Bush, feeling not up to the job of President and horribly shocked and frightened by the 9/11 attacks (of which he had been warned and then advised not to do anything about), was misled into invading Iraq by Cheney and his cabal of NeoCon extremists. But what dragged Blair into the same sinkhole? That's going to be an on-going question for a lot of us over the next years.

I recall having severe doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq, even with the threat of WMD's in the news, but then being somewhat mollified when I learned that Tony Blair was supporting the invasion. With bush everyone knew it was political and probably directed by Karl Rove (Cheney's great power was not yet widely reported) but Tony was independent of the Bush extremists. Blair's agreement on the invasion gave Bush's invasion plans a lot more weight. Now it is clear that somehow Tony Blair was also somehow suckered into the invasion. What is not yet clear is how.

I'm really waiting for more on this part of the story.

Blair dispaired of Bush war planning even as he sent British troops.

A newspaper reports that even as he planned to send troops to Iraq to support Bush's war in Iraq he was disturbed by the lack of planning and the apparently unconcern the Bush administration displayed when preparing for the war. See the story at the Huffington Post.

I am still at a loss to determine why Blair supported the war in Iraq in the first place. He seemed to have even less reason to invade Iraq than bush and the NeoCons did.

BBC - Bush's, Blair's policies have spawned new terrorists

The BBC reports a study that shows that the fialure to address root problems and instead just try to control things by application of force has caused a growth of the very problems that were not being addressed.

Iran, Syria and North Korea had become "emboldened", while the Taleban was on the rise in Afghanistan.

British withdrawal of Iraq troops a blow to Bush's "surge."

Dan Froomkin does a roundup of media reaction to the Bush/Cheney effort to "Spin" the British announcement of the withdrawal of troops from Southern Iraq.

There are numerous links to other journalists, but the short story is "This is a real blow to the effort of the Bush White House to push the Iraq troop surge."

Blair pulling Brits out of Iraq.

It looks like Britain is getting their troops out of the mess in Iraq. This is from the Guardian Wednesday Feb 21.

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

If the Brits pull about 3,000 troops out by the end of 2007, and we are increasing our troops numbers by 21,500, this cuts the increase back to 18,500. And we are conducting the increase by holding troops already there longer and sending new troops early, both without all the training or equipment they need, we have clearly gotten to the end of our ability to effect change militarily in Iraq.

---

See also Victory in Iraq is not an option.

---

Update: Feb 21, 1:53 PM CDT
This is from Juan Cole today:

"Tony Blair is taking 1600 troops out of Basra in the next few months and will aim to be down to only 3,000 or so (from 7,100 now) by the end of the year. Denmark is also going home.

This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.

Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come."

I wonder how long it will take for Gen. David Petreaus to get the idea that he is in a killing field with his troops and has no way of changing the actual situation. It looks like Tony Blair has figured that out and decided to act on it this year and next.

Without a draft, the U.S. simply does not have enough troops to pacify Iraq, no matter what strategy is applied. Bush/Cheney really want to blame the problems they are facing on the Iranian, but the Iranians are just a small side issue in Iraq. The U.S. has lost because it bit off a whole lot more than it had teeth to chew, and then did even that in a manner that can only be described as grossly incompetent.

Twenty-three more months, or a pair of impeachments, or a pair of resignations or other such removal from office of Bush and Cheney. That's probably another 2,000 dead American soldiers, 20,000 or more severely wounded soldiers, and God only knows how many Iraqis dead or wounded. For nothing more important than Bush's ego.