"while at the same time that he advocates an Iraqi bug out which will only intensify its immediacy."
What exactly do you mean by that?
If its 'cut and run' you are completely wrong and ignoirant of blairs position.
"Blair, unlike Howard of Australia, seems incapable of rallying his country to the need for firmness and action and his attitude is just a leading indicator of just how soft the political elites have become in their unwillingness to see the dangers and lead an effort to confront it now.
I'm afraid it will take something on the scale of a nuclear attack on London to rouse the populace and the elites will then belatedly see the need to send someone else's children off to die to protect their sorry asses from the results of their own foolishness."
I think you'll find blair has tried as hard, if not harder to rally the coubtry. He can't help the fact a large section of our country 'doesn't get it'.
I urge you to perhaps listen to him more often instead of liberal media cuttings that distort his position.
He didn't involve our military in two wars because he was incapable of rallying us behind the need for firmness and actions, I assure you.
I'm afraid it will take something on the scale of a nuclear attack on London to rouse the populace
I'm convinced that you're right but even then there will be those who will continue to blame the policies of the West. And while some of the populace will be roused others will look for accommodation and appeasement. It's 1938 all over again when getting a promise of peace on paper will convince people they are safe. "Peace in our times" said Neville Chamberlain after negotiating with Hitler in 1938 and holding up the non-aggression pact proudly.