http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/weekinreview/16cohe.html?ei=5062&en=4687499e6695098e&ex=1085284800&adxnnl=1&partner=GOOGLE&adxnnlx=1084676664-Wb4vw4dxqr98Rsfl2QUO4QLONDON — A rough rule of the Iraqi war has been this: events that are damaging to President Bush prove close to devastating for Tony Blair, the British prime minister. The outcry over weapons of mass destruction that could not be found was more intense in Britain than America, and now the gruesome photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison have prompted new talk of Mr. Blair's possible departure.
The reasons for Mr. Blair's particular vulnerability are threefold. Britain, unlike America, was not attacked by terrorists before it went to war in Iraq, so scrutiny of the motives for war is more searching. Mr. Blair works in a European environment, where skepticism over Iraq is de rigueur. And while the Bush administration came late to human rights as a justification for the war, Mr. Blair embraced it early on, so the prisoner abuse has embarrassed him acutely.
The future of Iraq and that of Mr. Blair have become inseparable. Mr. Blair needs to demonstrate quick progress there to quiet the clamor within his Labor Party and rebuff the taunt of the Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, that he has "lost his grip." Gordon Brown, Mr. Blair's adroit chancellor of the exchequer, is waiting in the wings.
The British strategy, as outlined by two officials close to Mr. Blair, is vigorous. The government wants a new United Nations Security Council resolution by early June that will give power to Iraqis, set out the country's political future and define the role of the American-led international military force there.
<more>