Keith, as you know, I respect your decision and salute what you're doing.
Although I don't believe we should go to war, I believe we will.
On that basis, Britain's involvement is perhaps understandable.
The Bush administration is clearly bent on implementing "regime change" come what may, and that the UN, France, Germany and a growing tide of opposition isn't going to stop them.
Depending one's stance, either those planning the war are so convinced of their own rectitude and the benefit to the Iraqi people and the wider world that they cannot comprehend the anti's stance or they are deliberately misleading the public to line the pockets of the multinationals and oil companies in which they all have a stake. Whatever, the course is set for war.
As I said earlier, however, the US administration is not stupid. It may be extremely naive in diplomatic terms, overweeningly arrogant militarily and simplistic politically, but it isn't stupid & it knows how to sell.
Thus the American public is already largely in favour of war, thanks to a broadcast media that has been largely supine in the face of the march to arms. The administration cares deeply about what the American public thinks, and with Bush riding at a record level for a president thanks to September 11, what better time to push for regime change. If a link can be hinted at between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 so much the better.
Guaranteed that it will play well in Peoria, Bush has little to lose at home by going to war. Unfortunately the rest of the world has a lot to lose.
This is where I may be making one of the daftest misjudgements of many (and if I am wrong, I too will grovel on this forum), but I believe that Blair's self-appointed mission is to ensure that the rest of the world loses as little as possible.
Faced with the world's only superpower lurching towards war like a drunk to the edge of a station platform, Blair was aghast.
Like the Greeks to the Romans, Britain regards itself - rightly or wrongly and to the infuriation of others - as the faded font of civilisation for the newer, brasher rulers; wilier in the ways of the world and more attuned to the consequences of any action, and well-practised in the black arts of diplomacy, negotiation, realpolitik and the use of the military.
The "special relationship" would appear to be special only on this side of the Atlantic, with America little disposed to help the UK unless it acts directly in the US interest.
Thus Blair could not "call in a favour" and get America to rein back, and if he protested his objections would be swept aside as easily as a gadfly (remember the illegal steel tariffs introduced by the US a year or so back, banged on in the face of protest from the UK after Bush had said there was no firmer friend to the US than Britain?).
Blair knows that the safest world is one where America co-exists with other nations, and where militant Islam is not inflamed by the infidel's arrogance; one where old fashioned rules of fair-play and diplomacy can be invoked to keep things "civilised". If America were simply to crash into Iraq and change the regime unilaterally, the consequences could be disastrous. The "war" part would be over quickly and with little loss of US life, but the knock-on effects could threaten us all.
Blair had already nailed his colours to the mast post-September 11 in the face of global terrorism, which was, is and will remain a real threat to the UK. Afghanistan had seemed simple & Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks, was based there and his operation (Al Queda simply means "the base" in Arabic) was focused there. The Taliban were overthrown and the country went back to the sort of chaotic factionalism that had prevailed for decades. So far so good.
Then George W says he's going to go for Iraq.
It's a tough call for Blair. Reason says the plan is dangerous, but reality says it can't be stopped. What Blair has done is bring some of the derided "Old Europe" into the planning. By linking with Bush, he gets a word in the ear of the planners, urging restraint and advising diplomacy while still appearing bellicose enough to be "on message" in the eyes of the Oval Office.
Without Blair, I am convinced that the Rumsfeld/Wolfovitz axis in the White House would have launched the war already. As it is, thanks to the delay and talking, US forces are still not all in place and the UN inspectors have been given an audience. There probably will not now be an attack until the UN debates a second resolution in the wake of 1441 & which might just allow time for Saddam to grovel and for the UN to show such proof that invasion becomes unthinkable.
Blair knows his position as poodle-in-chief makes him unpopular and he almost seems to squirm visible when it is mentioned, yet this man who has built his career on being liked clings on to the hawks' tails. He is also said to be a man with a strong moral core; a man with no firm ideology but a genuine Panglossian belief that all could be for the best if we could just get on, guys.
Perhaps he really is prepared to stake his reputation and his future on reining in America. If he is, he can't actually tell us so. It would not be diplomatic to say: "I don't want to have to use these soldiers I'm sending. I think American foreign policy is Neanderthal and threatens the security of the world, and this is all I can to civilise it."
We shall see when the guns start firing, because at that moment his strategy, if strategy it is, will have begun to fall apart. I don't think the guns will fire for that long if they do, because 1991 showed that the Iraqi army was little match for modern kit, but the consequences could be very long-lasting.
Is he right to do this, to stand beside Bush above the abyss and attempt to be the restraining influence in the face of an inevitable movement forward?
Again, I don't know. I do know, however, that mass protests around the world at the weekend will not change the American resolve. There is a rumbling anti-war movement within the US, with some big names attached, but they only get attention in the print media, not the more influential TV news. The administration don't give a toss about "Yurp" other than to call them Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys (bless Matt Groenig!)
My hunch is that Blair's is the only approach, but it's brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind. And good luck and godspeed to all those involved - including you, Keith.
For some reason I'm minded of Kipling's words to America in the early days of US expansion:
Take up the White Man's burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
...
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

It's a huge burden, and not one to be hefted lightly or without great care for the consequences.