Major Sir John Leaker: "You Don't Wait"

Our own Maj. Leaker's second cousin from Airstrip One rarely drips anything that the western wing of invasion-language journalism is much interested in. "Special relationship," what's that? Who wants to hear about their secrets, or even their non-secrets? Try to figure out what the redcoats are doing overtly down in their slice of conquered Mesopotamia from the pages of the New York Times and see how far you get.

Yesterday was different, however, and so here is Sir John, far down in the story after other and more American things, but definitely present:

According to a British official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with civil service rules, Mr. Blair used his session [with B*k*r & Co.] to reiterate many points he made in a major foreign policy address on Monday night, when he said Western strategy in the Middle East must 'evolve,' possibly to include a 'partnership' with Iran. On Tuesday, the official said, the prime minister told the panel that the key to the region’s problems was a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and that Western countries should press Iran and Syria to make a 'strategic choice' between cooperating in regional diplomacy or isolation. “You don’t wait,” the official said, recounting what he said were Mr. Blair’s remarks to the panel. 'You move forward, and you put it up to Iran and Syria: are they going to be part of the positive drive forward, or are they not?'

If the Prime Minister actually said that, perhaps it was a witticism as well as a Briticism. What, after all, do Messrs. B*k*r and H*m*lt*n and _et al._ exist for, except to keep the rest of us waiting for whatever ridiculus mus they shall eventually vouchsafe to reveal? We've been waiting so long already that some of us are even beginning to expect that the salvific revelation may not be especially ignotum nor especially magnificum when it finally does arrive. See for instance Mr. Michael Kinsley.

One might complain that Sir John himself has waited too long to leak, that the one thing we know for sure by now about the B-H Plan is that it will involve begging Damascus and Tehran for help in liquidating all those pesky "problems of success" that have unaccountably attended the Crawfordite aggression.of March 2003. (Even over at Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh they've heard rumors to that effect, and they do not seem very pleased, although it is hard to disentangle that one thread from general post-electoral malaise.)

The complaint would not be just, however, for there is a little bit of news here: Tony, at any rate, is in a hurry, and Tony, at any rate, has some idea what one might say to the evil-axisites as one implores their assistance. To put it crudely, one offers them "a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians" in exchange for coöperation in extricating the GOP geniues (and Mr. Blair) from their Peaceful Freedumbia. Before we pour cold water into that soup, notice that Tony is at least consistently invasionite: it would of course be a matter of Wunnerful Us imposin' such a settlement on Qadimans and Likudniks and Hamás and Fatáh, their could be no silly libertarian joshin' about "Freedom means settlement" after two generations of militant non-settlement on the locals' part. Only arm-twistin' would do the trick, more arm-twistin' than we have ever seen our way to yet for an objective that is not a matter of urgent national interest to us like petroleum or deliverance from Saddam's 45-minute terror-tipped specials. The Qommies and the Ba‘this are unlikely to find such an approach in violation of their own Gandhian principles, obviously, but one is a little surprised to learn that Mr. Blair thinks invasionism and impositionism are their own best cure. Perhaps he does not think of the question in general terms, however, and is only desperate to escape from the particular doo-doo of the moment.

The cold water consists in those two huge obstacles to Tony's plans, (1) Reality, and (2) George W. Bush. To begin with the latter, Little Brother is not in a hurry, and perhaps he could not be if he wished, not after 7 November 2006. He could, of course, make the necessary phone calls to Tehran and Damascus before noon this mornin' if he liked, but clearly there is not enough time between now and the Democrats to get everything settled unilaterally. Indeed, if he entirely concurred in Mr. Blair's schemes, it would be better to wait until January when there would be less wailin' and gnashin' of teeth from the Party neocomrades on Capitol Hill, if only because there will be somewhat fewer of them. Mr. Blair perhaps fails to appreciate that it is more difficult for Little Brother to impose himself upon the GOP geniuses and their base-and-vile that it has been for himself with New Labour. Or perhaps he appreciates it well enough, but doesn't think it statesmanlike to discuss such petty details?

Be that as it may, Little Brother would not wish to be in a hurry due to other causes as well. He's been micawberizin' about his mess in neo-Iraq for so long that it would be utterly out of character for him to succumb to a sense of urgency now. The chance of anythin' good for Crawford turnin' up spontaneously in the next two months is very slight, but the event is not logically impossible, after all. When the Democratic Congress does come in, Little Brother will find a way to keep on micawberizin' still, as I anticipate: the trick should not be impossible, or even very difficult, in light of the actual state of my party. He might begin by pointin' out that Neocomrade Gates really ought to be allowed a few months to get up to speed, for instance. Considering the margins in both chambers, Democrats would need almost a perfect Kirkegaardian purity of heart, all of them mean exactly one and the same thing about Peaceful Freedumbia, to put any serious pressure on the laddie. Their prospects of successful pressure are scarcely better than Tony Blair's, i.e., indistinguishable from zero.

Secondly, Little Brother does not in the slightest want to talk to Qommies or Ba‘this, for that would only encourage them. In the very last ditch, if the holy formula "Freedom Means Peace" is not saved by Jesus or Micawber or some other _deus ex machina_, Little Brother might well prefer a unilateral withdrawal to anythin' of the Blair or B-H sort -- perhaps he can't have success and victory, but there is no obvious reason why he can't go down bein' as unilateral and preëmptive as ever. Mr. Blair, of course, could not decently take that stand, having signed on with somebody else's vigilante expedition at the outset. He may be entirely as impositionist and invasionite as his big buddy, but he must logically be a multilateral imposer and invader. I daresay he thinks Airstrip One has done the Crawfordites a favour by making the posse look a bit less unilateral, but that will not be a favour much appreciated down at the ranch, should they even think of it at all, as I expect they do not. Notice that Blair thinks the Qommies and Ba‘this share his own aversion to unilateralism: "Western countries should press Iran and Syria to make a 'strategic choice' between cooperating in regional diplomacy or isolation," a nostrum that would be absurd if the bad guys don't actually mind being left out in the cold. Unfortunately the mad mullahs, at least, take rather a Rancho Crawford view of the matter and don't seem to mind isolation very badly at all.

There's a sort of triangle here, since the B-H crew (and Reality) do not share Little Brother's lone cowboy romanticism, being all for multilateral impositions and Allied invasions, yet they also fail to share Mr. Blair's romanticism about multilateralism simply as such or about the ease of solving the Palestine puzzle. The B-H sages are, after all, "realists," are they not, immune against all starry-eyed romanticisms whatsoever? -- our own Major Leaker has vouched for that secret truth about half a million times so far.

Probably what they'd say to Ba‘this and Qommies is not "Don't you want to stop being so isolated? Isn't it chilly out there? Don't you want to help everybody solve Palestine?" but something much sterner and more steel-trap-minded like "Do you want Little Brother to come invasionize you, gentlemen, and change your regimes out from under you? Surely not! So let's make a deal, you agree to help the GOP save its face in neo-Iraq, and we agree that what happened to Saddam won't happen to you. How about it?" Like Mr. Blair, they would perhaps be in the somewhat logic-challenged position of making invasion and imposition the cure as well as the disease, but at least they would offer their customers a product that the customers really want

The B-H panacea of tomorrow is not itself today's subject, except as it contrasts with those of Tony Blair and Little Brother, but briefly, the two weaknesses of such a scenario are (1) they cannot make promises that Little Brother and Uncle Sam are bound to keep, and (2) if their bluff should be called, won't it turn out to be only a bluff, after the Republican bungle in Iraq and the Qadiman botch in Lebanon? The risk is high that the evil-axisites will figure that Wunnerful US simply won't have the stomach for more such adventures any time soon. They may even figure that if Peaceful Freedumbia remains a bleeding ulcer, that will ensure their temporary safety better than the proposed deal would.

But God knows best. Bomby days.