Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain urges US to delay war until autumn (SHAME, SHAME ALERT)
The Daily Telegraph ^ | January 9, 2003 | Anton La Guardia and George Jones

Posted on 01/08/2003 4:57:05 PM PST by MadIvan

Britain is pressing for war against Iraq to be delayed for several months, possibly until the autumn, to give weapons inspectors more time to provide clear evidence of new violations by Saddam Hussein.

I can't begin to describe how unspeakably angry I am at Blair for this - Saddam should be dead already - I don't care if Blair has problems with left wingers in his party, it is the right thing to do - Ivan

Ministers and senior officials believe that there is no clear legal case for military action despite the build-up of American and British forces in the Gulf.

Senior diplomats have told the Government that there is a good chance of securing United Nations Security Council approval for military action later in the year if Saddam can be shown unambiguously to be defying the disarmament conditions set out in resolution 1441.

"The Prime Minister has made it clear that, unless there is a smoking gun, the inspectors have to be given time to keep searching," a senior Whitehall source said.

The uncertainty at the heart of the Government has resulted in ministers blowing hot and cold over the prospects for early military action.

The tensions were highlighted on Tuesday when Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, publicly rebuked Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, for playing down the chances of war.

In the Commons yesterday Tony Blair denied that the Cabinet was split or that he was engaging in "dangerous brinkmanship" with Saddam over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

But he was left in no doubt of growing opposition among Labour MPs to joining an American-led attack without convincing proof that Saddam had defied UN demands to dismantle his nuclear, chemical and biological programmes.

The exchanges showed that the Prime Minister could face a major revolt if he went to war without UN backing.

As the tempo of military preparations accelerates, British diplomats say they can win UN support for war only if the inspectors can corner Saddam, either by finding banned weapons and components or by forcing him to deny access to sites or to officials.

"Nobody familiar with the inspections process expects them to come up with the goods in a matter of weeks," a senior British official said.

"There is an assumption that there will be a campaign before the summer because of the heat. The autumn would be just as sensible a time and in the meanwhile Saddam would be thoroughly constrained by the inspectors."

Although the Government has sent a powerful naval force to the region and called up reservists, there has been a significant softening of Whitehall's warlike rhetoric.

Mr Straw said he thought the prospects of war were roughly 60:40 against. No 10 backed Mr Straw in downgrading the importance of the inspectors' first full report to the Security Council on Jan 27.

Officials said the date was "not a deadline"; the inspectors should be given "time and space" to carry out their work. They also insisted that an indefinite game of "cat and mouse" was not acceptable.

Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, is expected to tell the Security Council that Iraq is co-operating in terms of procedure, but that he needs time to investigate the apparent omissions in the latest declaration of its weapons programmes.

Hard-liners in Washington see Iraq's claim that it has no banned weapons as enough justification for action.

British officials know that the real decision about the war will be taken by President George W Bush. Powerful voices in Washington argue that prevarication would risk allowing another crisis to divert the effort against Iraq and afford Saddam a symbolic victory.

British officials hope that London's reservations and Mr Blair's growing problems in the Labour Party will help to tip the balance in the Bush administration in favour of delay.

But they accept that Britain will go along with an American-led war in almost all circumstances, including a conflict in the spring if Washington is determined to launch an early campaign.

The first Prime Minister's Questions of the year, held at noon instead of 3pm under Commons reforms, was dominated by Iraq.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, highlighting the spat between Mr Hoon and Mr Straw, warned Mr Blair that he could not win public backing for a war if he could not convince his Cabinet and if troops were only "half-prepared for war".


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: blair; hoon; iraq; saddam; straw; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: MadIvan
Probably just blair or some spokesperson trying to keep the Labour wimps happy, knowing that Bush will ignore the idea even if it is presented to him. But it's a dangerous game.

Blair is between a rock and a hard place. His heart obviously isn't in this war, as it was with the attack on the Serbs with his good buddy clinton (in which he took a leading part).

On the one hand he risks losing the support of his left-wing colleagues; on the other he risks the Special Relationship, which he is smart enough to know would be a disaster for the U.K.

At least he's better than Schroeder--and as a result his political position is stronger, too.
21 posted on 01/08/2003 5:36:11 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
There's never been a better name for any aircraft carrier than the Ark Royal.

The original Ark Royal was the one ship most responsible for sinking the Bismarck.

Blair is not going to ask Dubya to delay anything. This article is total crap. I'm sure there are some wobbly ministers around but they can't do anything except whine.
22 posted on 01/08/2003 5:36:58 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I find it absolutely inconceivable that the US will send hundreds of thousands of troops to just sit around that hellhole until next autumn while our enemies continue to gather strength as we do nothing to stop them. I just don't see that happening.
23 posted on 01/08/2003 5:37:54 PM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don't think Blair is wimping out at all. I don't follow the British press as closely as our own, but Britain has been there all along, including in the No-Fly Zone.

He has to fight the people in his own party, but backing down now would be foolish. I don't think he is.

24 posted on 01/08/2003 5:42:28 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Argus
I find it absolutely inconceivable that the US will send hundreds of thousands of troops to just sit around that hellhole until next autumn while our enemies continue to gather strength as we do nothing to stop them. I just don't see that happening.

We're sending troops as well. I cannot imagine that they will sit there either. Gordon Brown, our Chancellor, would scream about the cost of sitting around and doing nothing, at the very least.

Regards, Ivan

25 posted on 01/08/2003 5:44:12 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"There's nothing in this story that directly indicates that Britain has actually urged us to delay anything. I'd be surprised if they do."

After reading the headline and the story, I went back to check the byline -- suspecting that Dana Milbank was now writing for The Telegraph.

26 posted on 01/08/2003 5:47:48 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
including a conflict in the spring

Spring comes about 1 1/2 months too late for that. It'll be a mid to late winter campaign.

27 posted on 01/08/2003 5:48:29 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Perhaps it is disinformation at it's best.
28 posted on 01/08/2003 5:49:25 PM PST by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
You never know, Ivan, Dubya and Tony might've already scripted this all out. I'm basically taking a 'wait and see' attitude on Iraq. I figure a whole lot more's going on behind the scenes than I'll ever be privy to. I have confidence that Dubya will attack when the time is right- if that time ever comes at all. The big goal is to take down Saddam, not necessarily to destroy Iraq.

But yeah, I could definitely see them playing a "good cop, bad cop" sort of scenario here until they've got all their ducks in a row.

29 posted on 01/08/2003 5:49:47 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
something to do with north korea I'd say...
30 posted on 01/08/2003 5:56:10 PM PST by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: krodriguesdc
The British press needs to read "Searching for Dirty Bombs" - an article posted on FR right now by Insight. I don't know the credibility of the source, but several officials are quoted as saying that two prisoners taken after 9/11 had signs of radiation poisoning and US intelligence officials are nearly convinced a nuclear attack is coming.
32 posted on 01/08/2003 6:11:46 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Wimps.
33 posted on 01/08/2003 6:25:34 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
"The British press needs to read "Searching for Dirty Bombs" - an article posted on FR right now by Insight.

I think highly of Insight Magazine, will you post a link?

34 posted on 01/08/2003 6:29:33 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Strawberry Fields Forever..
35 posted on 01/08/2003 6:30:52 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Strawberry Fields Forever..

Yes indeed, "living is easy with eyes closed".

Regards, Ivan

36 posted on 01/08/2003 6:32:04 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: blam
It's not Insight Magazine but something called Insight On The News. It looks legit and the article reads legit. Will post a link in a few minutes.
37 posted on 01/08/2003 6:33:57 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Searching for Dirty Bombs
38 posted on 01/08/2003 6:36:28 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
It smells like a New York Times technique; make up a story the way YOU want it to be and use "unnamed sources" to bolster your point.

But the Telegraph is supposed to be a center-right newspaper. I could see this story running in some of the liberal papers (e.g., Mirror, Independent, Guardian). Why is it so inconceivable that Blair has gone "wobbly"? He might be more hawkish than his party and/or the rest of Europe, but he's still a left-winger...

39 posted on 01/08/2003 6:41:45 PM PST by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks, it is Insight Magazine.

"That a nuclear-bomb plot may have been thwarted was made disturbingly clear, the sources say, by the disclosure that physical evidence indicated some detained al-Qaeda members actually had handled radioactive materials, including at least two who exhibited symptoms of radiation sickness. One of the sources said this "only intensified our concerns about al-Qaeda networks we continue to monitor. ... They exhibited symptoms of exposure to various radioactive substances" consistent with building a dirty bomb."

40 posted on 01/08/2003 6:48:36 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson