Ulterior motive - UK in Iraq?

[Dauphin]

France and Russia are said to be against war because of their economic interests there that will likely be diminished.

Germany is against because the leadership was elected on anti-US sentiment

The US is said to be there for oil, global willy wangling, and revenge.


So why is the UK in this war? What's their angle? I haven't heard a potentially convincing argument. Wanting to remain Bush's poodle is hardly an incentive to play fetch with hand grenades.

[Skanky Burns]

Why? It works for Australia.

[Sandman]

Tragically, Blair does actually think that he's doing good. And he's too proud to back down.

[Spiffor]

There are several reasons the UK might want to participate in this war.

IIRC, the UK is heavily dependant on the US for its military technology. The UK cannot afford to radically piss the US if it wants to keep a modern army. The UK is also playing its international status : by being US' top ally, it has a diplomatic importance to be reckoned with, and has an influence on US policies. In this crisis, the UK has been the only country with some influence on the US.
The UK would have to reconsider its grand diplomatic scheme radically, if it stopped being the US' lapdog.

There is also a European reason : until now, the UK has always been an opponent to further European integration. Every time a new step is being made to a more supranational Europe, the UK has dragged its feet. The UK has been consistent in trying to limit Europe to a Free-market zone. Call this "splendid isolation" or a sheer will to keep as much independance as possible from Brussels, the UK has always been cautious / hostile to the evolutions of the EEC or the EU.
From the beginning of the crisis, France and Germany, the 2 other European majors, opposed the war. At the end of January, they even tried to push for a common European stance on the issue. The UK will try to undermine the emergence of such a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Since the unifying factor of such a policy will be the opposition to US' interventionism, you can expect the UK to continue being on the side of the Americans.

Lastly, I suppose the UK wants contracts in post-Saddam Iraq, like everybody else. BP could make much money if it gets a hand on Iraqi oilfields, and the market for reconstruction will be huge, and accorded to American and British companies.

[Ned]

Sandman, why is that true for Blair and not true for Bush?

Think about this. The US formed a coalition to take Iraq. A coalition! Why would it do that if it's goal is the oil or something like that.

Next think about this, Bush and Blair have commited to UN help in post-war humanitarian aid.

Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

Where does the US or the UK profit from this?

[VetLegion]

Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

I guess you didn't hear what Powell said recently.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

That would be absolutely great !
Do you have a link ?

[Case]

I thought that the US government had already anounced the all US group of retired generals, beurocrats and corperations which are going to 'rebuild' Iraq...

[VetLegion]

Powell: UN can't have control

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6195182%255E25778,00.html

About UK, I don't think anyone has any idea whatsoever why they are involved in this.


My guess is lack of democracy, monarchy and so on

[KrazyHorse]

My guess is that Blair didn't see where things were going.

He thought Bush cared about disarmament (through the UN).

Then when the US stance (we're going in no matter what you say, so give us permission) ended up pissing off some Euro powers enough that they took a similarly intransigent line and the US ended up doing what it was going to do anyway, Blair couldn't very well back down.

He got in over his head because of criminal stupidity, but can't admit that now.

[VetLegion]

Britain was always the power that insisted most on balance of power. This is a total departure from their tradition.

I am watching Yes minister TV series these days. Great stuff, I wonder if that is how british politics really work. (everything being run by evil civil servants )

[Ned]

That link about Powell said the coalition had no intention of letting the UN take over the new government after the coalition, and not the UN, had made the investment.

This still means that the coalition will supervise the transition.

The coalition.

Not the US.

[DanS]

If the UK has ulterior motives, they aren't that clear. The UK has been enforcing happily the no-fly zone thing with the US for the last 12 years, for instance.

I take Blair at his word. He doesn't want to see a split between the US and Europe. Over the long run, he's making the right choice, since Germany and France just don't have the math on their side when compared to the US.

Btw, the balance of power system is soooo over.

[KrazyHorse]

So his solution is to back the US 100% and then at the last instant propose a compromise which consisted of things the US had pretty much already rejected (specific checklists)?

[DanS]

Actually, I think the stance was more coordinated than that. The UK was scouting out the territory, which the US would "bless", if successful. If insufficient success, then the US falls back on its original position.

It's true that Blair and co. were much more sanguine about success than was Bush and co. Blair must have overestimated the cohesion of Europe, the persuasive power of the US, and the friendliness of Chirac.