Alone again, naturally...

[khaosworks]

US may go it alone as Blair is caught in diplomatic deadlock

Washington was forced to admit for the first time last night that it might have to start the war against Iraq without British forces because of the internal political problems heaping up for Tony Blair.

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that Mr Blair's difficulties had caused the White House to contemplate going to war without its closest ally.

After talks with his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, Mr Rumsfeld said that the British role in an assault was now "unclear" and that Washington was well aware that the Blair government's freedom of action might be restrained by a rebellious parliament.

"Their situation is distinctive to their country and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their distinctive way," Mr Rumsfeld said. "And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event a decision is made to use force."

Mr Rumsfeld's remarks provoked a mixture of panic and fury in Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence last night. After frantic telephone calls between Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Hoon, the Pentagon issued a clarification of Mr Rumsfeld's remarks, although there was no retraction.

But...

UK plays down US rift

UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has sought to dispel speculation that American troops might go to war with Iraq without British involvement.

On Tuesday US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting the US had alternative plans if there was no second UN resolution and the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq.

The remarks - later retracted - caused shock and surprise in Downing Street, which chose to focus on continuing efforts to secure a new United Nations resolution.

Mr Hoon told the BBC on Wednesday morning that Mr Rumsfeld had been referring to a "theoretical possibility" that British troops might not be involved.

He added: "He has every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the UK."

Mr Hoon also suggested that there might not need to be a second United Nations resolution to give the go ahead for war.

Asked if the existing resolution 1441 could in itself provide the authority to go to war, he said: "Certainly it is possible to read 1441 in that way".

And the circle closes every tighter. The one bright spot out of all this is that Tony Blair is almost certain to take a hopefully fatal hit to his political credibility and with any luck will be out on his duff by the next election. Yes, I'm an optimist.

And in case there was still any doubt, Hoon's interpretation of 1441 is complete bullshit. As pointed out many times, nothing in 1441 gives the US or the UK the jurisdiction to enforce 1441. They keep saying it. Doesn't make it any less bullshit.

Comments

[mysticlegacy.livejournal.com]

The only problem there is who would we be getting as a replacement? A conservative government? *shudder*

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

A new Labour PM might be acceptable, depending... on... (looks over the likely candidates). God, an armed revolution might be the only answer.

[hrrunka]

I heard Rumsfeld's statement on the news last night. It was so convoluted as to be almost incomprehensible. It'll be next Sunday's "Donald Rumsfeld sound-bite of the week" for sure...