>Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides on this issue.
>
>I have always wondered why Blair was so quick to back an Iraq invasion. This is counter to:
>- almost every other major industrialized nation
>- his own party
>- the will of the British
>
>I often thought it there was some backroom economic deal, but could it be because the Blair owes the US? After Sept 11th, the US stopped Amercian nationals from funding the IRA by clamping down on groups such as NORAID.

I just finished watching a Fifth Estate episode. It explains why Tony Blair backed to US, and why he has gone into battle against Iraq without a UN resolution.

Brits are a lot like Canadians. We believe in international institutions. Especially the UN. This combined with the fact that Blair is a bit of a poll junkie. He always tweaks his policies to make himself and his party more popular.

Blair's strategy was to engage the US in their strong stance against Iraq instead of opposing it like many other countries. By doing this he could influence the US (be seen as a friend instead of an enemy).The main goal was to influence the US to get the backing of the UN. In fact he appears to have promised the US that he could get the approval of the security council. Without this promise, Bush may not have even bothered with the UN to start with.

Blair wasn't able to deliver a UN resolution and now was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He could support the UN or support the US. His party, his parliment and his people were all urging him to stick with the UN stance. Instead he gambled that after war was declared that everyone would fall in line to support the troops. This appears to have worked.

Very interesting!