Thirty Days: Tony Blair and the Test of History [Hardcover]

I recently finished another title on the British PM ("Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader" by Philip Stephens [2004]), so I felt relatively familiar with the central players in this book. Peter Stothard's quick, journalistic style introduces names and titles quickly, and while the players become clearer to us in the course of the narrative, Americans who don't have much contextual familiarity with British politicians may find themselves playing a bit of catch-up here.

Since 9/11, of course, Tony Blair himself has become more familiar to American news-watchers than any British politician since Churchill -- with the possible exception of Baroness Thatcher. Therefore, even Americans who may not be up-to-date on the Who's Who of Whitehall will probably find a lot of interest and instruction here. Not least, they will see the influence -- for good or ill -- that American politics and political pressures have in the counsels of our allies.

Peter Stothard's book isn't a biography of Blair or a political analysis of his policies and his decisions. Instead, it's a look inside the highest reaches of British politics during one of the more eventful months in recent British history. American as well as British readers can gain a lot from the unique access Stothard enjoyed, and the useful work that came out of those thirty days.

My quick view of the book is that the author and former Times editor Peter Stothard acts like he is not in the room but rather he is a quiet observer just recording the events without comments and editorial comments. A "fly on the wall" so to speak for 30 days. The book starts on Monday March 10 and ends Wednesday April 9. The war starts March 20 2003.

At the beginning or near the beginning of the book Blair acknowledges that Bush will proceed with or without Britain. The war seems set and there will be no consensus at the UN.

What I found odd about the book is that there is very little mention of the WMD's, or the other reasons for going to war. There is no mention of intelligence briefings, or satellite pictures or similar. By March 10 his mind has been made up. It is more about damage control, politics, speeches, and not having ministers resigning and similar. His image in the press and on TV share a high priority along with with diplomacy. By March 10 the decision has been made.

The question on everyone's mind is why does Blair back George Bush - the "poodle principle". Blair is almost alone, and the other leaders in the "coalition" do so with great reluctance. They make a minimal contribution to the Iraqi war effort and they seem poised to not want to cooperate or back out at any moment. So why does Blair do it? The only strong point we learn or hear is that by that date (March 10) Blair is determined to proceed seemingly at any cost to maintain US ties with Europe. He has decided to let "history" judge him for how the situation ends rather than trying to further explain his actions privately. He thinks that the UN should be involved, but barring no UN consensus his main point (among his 6 talking points to parliament) is that he does not want the US to become more isolated than it already is through complete 100% unilateral action. So at least Britain will help.

We get a feel for his compressed and overstressed life, a political juggling act, his lack of sleep, his battle to survive as the Labour leader in a parliamentary system where he must face his opposition daily in question period and his caucus weekly. They all seem to be after his job and Iraq is as good as an excuse as any to oppose Blair. Unlike Bush he can be voted out by his own party on a whim - like Thatcher - so he is not secure for the term elected in parliament (5 years).

One thing that comes out is that Blair acts like a lightening rod for many parties that no longer have access to Bush. This includes various Muslim messengers and diplomats visiting him and his talks with Arafat and others by telephone.

Since we already knew most of that - the book seems a bit anti-climatic and deals a lot with the logistics of his day-to-day life, the trivial details, his meals, his assistants, and travel. It gives us an intimate feel for the life of the PM in the confined space of 10 Downing. It covers his meetings with other leaders, and various other dignitaries, his telephone calls to Bush etc. The logistics do not tell us a lot new, although there are some details on Robin Cook's resignation and similar tidbits. He comes across as an energetic and very focused man, with a strong inner compass and lots of self confidence, and a strong determined leader with an ability to take and absorb a lot of domestic criticism.

So the book is all very very interesting but short on any new insights. But still a great book.

Jack in Toronto.

And it tells of the many frustrations Tony Blair met while trying to achieve that objective. For example, after George Bush published the roadmap for peace (something Tony Blair worked very hard to achieve) the Prime Minister received a call from Yasser Arafat. He spent a bit of time on the phone with him (and got a chance to say a brief hello and congratulations to Abu Mazen before Arafat snatched the phone away) and when he replaced the receiver, he looked up at a television screen to see "a Palestinian representative damning Bush's motives."

He says nothing but his aid says it for him, "They've got to be told [that] this is their chance. If they don't use it, they'll lose it."

And then there is the never-ending frustration with the BBC which John Reid may or may not have called the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. But "even if he didn't say it," Peter Stothard assures us, "it's ___ well true." The Secretary of Defense (and his porcelain cup which nearly suffered a terrible fate thanks to the BBC) would most likely agree.

And then there are the conspiracy theories out on the street, just outside No. 10. Conspiracy theories propagated not by the "ignorant masses" but by elderly Arab professors, sipping coffee at the Churchill café and assuring their students that "oil companies and Israeli spies and Russians whose names have not been heard since the Communist days" are all working together to manipulate current events.

But above all, this is about the British political culture. Where else would talk of football/soccer dominate even at the height of the war? In what other country would the French President's comment that the British had "made a deformation of his view on the veto" be met with "Does he mean we got the translation wrong?" And in what other country would a three-year old pick up a telephone call from the President of the United States and pass the phone to the Prime Minister with the cry, "Dad, pick up the phone."

This is a book about Tony Blair vision and of how he tries to educate his American counterparts on what it takes to "get to where they all eventually want to go." (You want peace in the Middle East, great; but it will be neither fast nor easy. Here, look how hard it is to achieve peace in Northern Ireland-and compared to the Middle East this is a walk in the park.) It is about the vagaries of British political culture. It is about how one man acquires an unshakeable certainty that what he is doing is the right thing.

But perhaps more than all that, it is a beautifully written book (not something one can often say of books on current events) that is filled with humor and irony and is, quite simply, a very good read. I highly recommend it.