The ties that bind Bush and Blair

Re “Blair knew better,” Opinion, and “Blair blew the ‘special relationship,’ ” Opinion, May 16

In bemoaning the legacy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Ronald Brownstein and Ian Kershaw ironically lend support to President Bush’s and Blair’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein without the support of the international community.

Brownstein cites the importance of the United Nations in the Balkans, and Kershaw points to Kosovo in 1999 -- merely two examples of that august body’s fecklessness, as exemplified later in restraining Hussein’s blatant defiance of that body, only to be encouraged by rampant corruption in the oil-for-food program.

With a brief and apt reference to World War II and Winston Churchill’s historic foresight, Kershaw reinforces Bush’s and Blair’s rightful actions in Iraq and understanding that, knowing what we then knew, not acting resolutely or waiting for the full support of the international community would have constituted irresponsibility by the free world’s two commendable leaders.

THOMAS A. EDELMAN

Santa Monica

*

Brownstein writes about how Blair marched into the war in Iraq with Bush although Blair believed that the matter should have been handled by international collaboration.

Bush, of course, had no use for the international community’s intervention.

Because of the “special relationship” and emotional ties between the U.S. and Britain, is it possible for any British prime minister or American president to say no when support is requested, especially if American or British lives are expected to be lost?

If the answer to this question is no, then isn’t it incumbent on both to think long and hard before putting the other in such a difficult position?

MIKE FUTCH

Santa Cruz