Two Leaders
It's an interesting thing, but since World War 2, The World Changing Events have been heavily influenced by the leaders of the US and the UK working (more or less) together.
World War 2. A mad German painter instructs his adoring followers to invade half of Europe, intent on gaining sufficent land to allow his nation to expand as much as they like and rule the world (and as a bonus rid the world of Jewry). He was in the end stopped by the combined efforts of an unlikely pair of leaders - the ageing aristocrat, romantic and near alcoholic Winston Churchill and a prematurely aged, crippled polio victim Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They were of course aided and abetted - and ultimately outmanouevred - by the original Poison Dwarf, Uncle Joe Stalin. Which set up.....
The Cold War. Near fifty years of a divided Europe, the most costly and dangerous arms race in history and misery for millions. Ended finally by another unlikely pairing - this time a grocer's daughter from Middle England, the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher (and her legendary handbag) and an ageing Hollywood actor, union activist and California State Governor, Ronald Reagan. An odd couple to be sure, but they shared a political philosphy and a love of freedom, and were prepared to face down the apparent might of the Soviet Empire. They too were aided and abetted by a Russian leader, he of the strawberry birthmark and Western appearance Mikhail Gorbachev - but much more importantly by the Polish Pope, ex-goalkeeper and all round top bloke John Paul 2. Between them, they brought to an end Communism in Europe, flattened the Berlin Wall and (re)introduced free market capitalism to millions of people in Eastern Europe, from former Soviet satellite states, who in most cases weren't ready for it and have spent the last 30-odd years coming to terms with it. They're largely doing pretty well nowadays.
The War on Terror. Now this will be a contentious one, I'm sure. Ten years ago, 9/11. A bunch of Islamic fundamentalist loonies fly packed airliners into New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington. Another plane comes down in the Pennsylvania countryside. Three thousand innocent people, of all nationalities and religious persuasions, die. Air travel - indeed most travel, especially international - will never be the same again. The American President, ex-Texan Governor and oilman, son of a previous President, George W.Bush, declares war on the nutters. The British Prime Minister, wannabe rock star, lawyer, celebrity loving Newcastle United fan Tony Blair, jumps to his feet and echoes George's declaration. Between them, they pulled together a coalition of like-minded countries, including ex-Soviet bloc nations like Poland, and invaded Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (the fucker behind 9/11) and while they were at it overthrow the extremist Taliban leadership. Then they turned their attentions to Iraq, whose equally loony dictator Saddam Hussein was widely reckoned to be funding al Qaeda and as a side show developing an arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - that he was quite happy to use on his own people by way of target practice. Today, 10 years later, there is a fragile democracy in both countries, the Taliban seem to be staging something of a comeback, people are still dying from suicide bomber attacks, Saddam and Osama are both dead (at least that was a good result), and there are still thousands of troops on the ground in both countries (largely from the US and the UK). George and Tony have both gone, of course: Bush left after two terms in office (the most allowed successively under American law apparently), and Blair won a third term, despite being embroiled in a succession of public enquiries into Britain's activities in the Iraq war, all of them aimed at personally blaming him for the deaths of British soldiers and Iraqi citizens (War Crimes a familiar but unproven charge), before getting fed up of the whole business of politics and ducking out halfway through his third term, handing over to the ham-fisted ex-Chancellor Gordon Brown, and thus paving the way for Britain's first coalition Government since World War 2.
Not sure what they're doing for a living these days - apart from writing their memoirs, both lucrative best sellers of course.
* * *
I've read both books. Surprisingly, I enjoyed them both too.
First, Bush's tome : "Decision Points". The writing style, though technically English is hardly literary, it is light and conversational, as you would expect from an ex-President widely ridiculed for the odd linguistic faux pas (though not quite on a par with Dan Quayle). He writes the way he speaks, conversational and direct. The book is broken down into sections that broadly link times in his life when he has to determine a particular course of action in his life and follow it, come hell or high water - hence the books title. The "decisions points" are the predictable - to stand or not stand for Governor and President, to invade Iraq - and the mildly surprising - his religious faith, and giving up alcohol. I expected some evasions over the War on Terror and Iraq, given they shaped his Presidency and were no universally popular, but I think he was honest in his descriptions of why he acted the way he did: basically, he was a President faced with an unexpected and totally unique experience - the 9/11 attacks - that demanded a strong response, but against a very little known and shadowy enemy. Given the intelligence advice he received, in hindsight not always the best, he clearly did what he considered was right for his country and its people. I don't see how you could argue with that.
Some of the more contentious decisions over the years since then - like waterboarding al Qaeda operatives (or suspects), the troop surge - are discussed with honesty and clarity, and like it or not, he is unapologetic about either. He clearly believed at the time the decisions were correct, and sees nothing since to change his opinion. Stubbornly wrong or clear headed and right? You decide: he's not asking for judgement or forgiveness, merely reporting what he did and why. No excuses.
Overall, I thought he came across as a decent enough guy trying to fumble his way through an indecent situation, and in many cases whichever course of action he took would have been praised and condemned in equal measure. Preidency, I suppose.
And what of Our Tone? Well, his book "A Journey" is far more weighty than "Decision Points", written in a far more scholarly (ok, English) way, but with some entertaining, light touches and unexpected humour. He comes across as a very ambitious poilitician, but the early years - his childhood and university years, his time as a barrister before becoming an MP, are hardly discussed at all, except for the odd poignant memory of conversations with his dying mother, and facing up to a school bully. I could have done with more of that, to gain a better insight to how his childhood and adolescence shaped his character, and who influenced his political beliefs - there is little about that. Even his earlier years in the Labour Party, and in Parliament, before assuming the leadership after John Smith's death, are lightly covered. If the book is really about "A Journey" then the first few stations were missed.
The book is really about New Labour. It's rise to government, what it did when it got there, and how it all went wrong. It's very clear that Blair was the driving force behind it, ably assisted by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell. Gordon Brown, another architect of the idea, actually comes out of this rather badly, as someone who was a great Chancellor but never really bought into the New Labour philosophy, with predictable consequences in the end. Old and New Labout stalwarts in the main are affectionately portrayed, especially the two Johns, Prescott and Reid, Charles Clark and David Blunkett. Other figures fare less well - Robin Cook, Margaret Hodge, the current leader Ed Milliband (his brother David is more liked by Blair) and especially Ed Balls were clearly not Blair's favourite people in the world, although he's far too polite to say so directly.
He comes across as very much a convictions politician, and one who at critical times was very much in tune with public opinion in fact rather than for convenience or headlines. He is very clear in describing the way his policy ideas came about and the internal battles he had to fight to get some of them adopted. On 9/11, the War on Terror and Iraq, and the subsequent public enquiries and personal condemnation he suffered, Blair is very open and I think honest, and does not attempt to pass any of the blame on to others (like Bush, or the Intelligence Services for offering flawed information and advice) as he could so easily have done. Instead, he quotes verbatim from a number of reports from the UN, the IAEA, Amnesty International and others, to illustrate the kind of information he may have been privy to (though the rest of us probably weren't) and explain why he took the decisions he did. He expresses regret at the loss of life (and in one section describes meeting the family of one killed British soldier at Downing Street, then breaking down in tears in a one-on-one conversation afterwards with the widow) but stands by the choices he made. Like Bush, he was clearly in an invidious position and did the best he could and what he thought was right at the time.
Blair also attempts something in his book that Bush didn't do - offer a personal view of the world and its current issues. "Decision Points" ends with the handover to Obama, and George heading off to a Texan sunset and barbecue: the end. But Tony, in a postscript, offers interesting and sharp views on the financial crisis, global warning, the Arab Spring, the Palestine Question and other meaty stuff. It's an interesting conclusion to an interesting book.
* * *
The interesting thing about the Blair - Bush pairing is that politically they should have been miles apart and probably loathed each other. Bush the Conservative, small government, big on tax cuts, free market economy, America first and fuck the rest of the world. Blair the progressive liberal, the Dmocrat. Bigger Government (though less than traditional Labour peeople would want). A kind of free market economy but with much more government regulation. Britian important but not the power it once was, looking more to Europe than the US, but seeing the Special Relationship as a thing of value too.
And yet, after 9/11, the arms length working relationship both admit to in their respective books grew into a close friendship and mutual admiration society. Bush admits that Blair sometimes acted as a brake to the more excessive demands from Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a tireless advocate for the Coalition and UN Resolution prior to Iraq. Blair professes an admiration for the way Bush handled himself in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and admits to having to work very hard to keep the American on the straight and narrow.
It was an odd partnership, but it worked. Whether for good or bad is a personal choice.
* * *
And now?
Well, it's all gone a bit pear shaped. Obama came into the Presidency on a wave of optimism but doesn't really seem to have lived up to the publicity and expectation. He's not helped by trying to run the country with the opposition Republicans controlling Congress. It all seems to be getting very spiteful and petty and I can't see him winning another term. A big disappointment: like John Major, who I thought offered much when he became Prime Minister but ultimately failed to deliver.
Cameron I really cannot make my mind up about at all. As a council house kid, I have a little problem with his old Etonian Rich Kid background that doesn't sit at all well with his attempts at the popular touch ("Call me Dave"....). To that extent he's a typical Old School Tory, ripe for leadership. But I don't know, he just doesn't seem to have any real policies beyond knee jerk reactions and sound bites ("The Big Society"? What the hell happened to that idea? What was it all about anyway? And now it's "Our Broken Society"......make your mind up, Dave, please!).
It's all a bit of a worry, really.
World War 2. A mad German painter instructs his adoring followers to invade half of Europe, intent on gaining sufficent land to allow his nation to expand as much as they like and rule the world (and as a bonus rid the world of Jewry). He was in the end stopped by the combined efforts of an unlikely pair of leaders - the ageing aristocrat, romantic and near alcoholic Winston Churchill and a prematurely aged, crippled polio victim Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They were of course aided and abetted - and ultimately outmanouevred - by the original Poison Dwarf, Uncle Joe Stalin. Which set up.....
The Cold War. Near fifty years of a divided Europe, the most costly and dangerous arms race in history and misery for millions. Ended finally by another unlikely pairing - this time a grocer's daughter from Middle England, the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher (and her legendary handbag) and an ageing Hollywood actor, union activist and California State Governor, Ronald Reagan. An odd couple to be sure, but they shared a political philosphy and a love of freedom, and were prepared to face down the apparent might of the Soviet Empire. They too were aided and abetted by a Russian leader, he of the strawberry birthmark and Western appearance Mikhail Gorbachev - but much more importantly by the Polish Pope, ex-goalkeeper and all round top bloke John Paul 2. Between them, they brought to an end Communism in Europe, flattened the Berlin Wall and (re)introduced free market capitalism to millions of people in Eastern Europe, from former Soviet satellite states, who in most cases weren't ready for it and have spent the last 30-odd years coming to terms with it. They're largely doing pretty well nowadays.
The War on Terror. Now this will be a contentious one, I'm sure. Ten years ago, 9/11. A bunch of Islamic fundamentalist loonies fly packed airliners into New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington. Another plane comes down in the Pennsylvania countryside. Three thousand innocent people, of all nationalities and religious persuasions, die. Air travel - indeed most travel, especially international - will never be the same again. The American President, ex-Texan Governor and oilman, son of a previous President, George W.Bush, declares war on the nutters. The British Prime Minister, wannabe rock star, lawyer, celebrity loving Newcastle United fan Tony Blair, jumps to his feet and echoes George's declaration. Between them, they pulled together a coalition of like-minded countries, including ex-Soviet bloc nations like Poland, and invaded Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (the fucker behind 9/11) and while they were at it overthrow the extremist Taliban leadership. Then they turned their attentions to Iraq, whose equally loony dictator Saddam Hussein was widely reckoned to be funding al Qaeda and as a side show developing an arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - that he was quite happy to use on his own people by way of target practice. Today, 10 years later, there is a fragile democracy in both countries, the Taliban seem to be staging something of a comeback, people are still dying from suicide bomber attacks, Saddam and Osama are both dead (at least that was a good result), and there are still thousands of troops on the ground in both countries (largely from the US and the UK). George and Tony have both gone, of course: Bush left after two terms in office (the most allowed successively under American law apparently), and Blair won a third term, despite being embroiled in a succession of public enquiries into Britain's activities in the Iraq war, all of them aimed at personally blaming him for the deaths of British soldiers and Iraqi citizens (War Crimes a familiar but unproven charge), before getting fed up of the whole business of politics and ducking out halfway through his third term, handing over to the ham-fisted ex-Chancellor Gordon Brown, and thus paving the way for Britain's first coalition Government since World War 2.
Not sure what they're doing for a living these days - apart from writing their memoirs, both lucrative best sellers of course.
* * *
I've read both books. Surprisingly, I enjoyed them both too.
First, Bush's tome : "Decision Points". The writing style, though technically English is hardly literary, it is light and conversational, as you would expect from an ex-President widely ridiculed for the odd linguistic faux pas (though not quite on a par with Dan Quayle). He writes the way he speaks, conversational and direct. The book is broken down into sections that broadly link times in his life when he has to determine a particular course of action in his life and follow it, come hell or high water - hence the books title. The "decisions points" are the predictable - to stand or not stand for Governor and President, to invade Iraq - and the mildly surprising - his religious faith, and giving up alcohol. I expected some evasions over the War on Terror and Iraq, given they shaped his Presidency and were no universally popular, but I think he was honest in his descriptions of why he acted the way he did: basically, he was a President faced with an unexpected and totally unique experience - the 9/11 attacks - that demanded a strong response, but against a very little known and shadowy enemy. Given the intelligence advice he received, in hindsight not always the best, he clearly did what he considered was right for his country and its people. I don't see how you could argue with that.
Some of the more contentious decisions over the years since then - like waterboarding al Qaeda operatives (or suspects), the troop surge - are discussed with honesty and clarity, and like it or not, he is unapologetic about either. He clearly believed at the time the decisions were correct, and sees nothing since to change his opinion. Stubbornly wrong or clear headed and right? You decide: he's not asking for judgement or forgiveness, merely reporting what he did and why. No excuses.
Overall, I thought he came across as a decent enough guy trying to fumble his way through an indecent situation, and in many cases whichever course of action he took would have been praised and condemned in equal measure. Preidency, I suppose.
And what of Our Tone? Well, his book "A Journey" is far more weighty than "Decision Points", written in a far more scholarly (ok, English) way, but with some entertaining, light touches and unexpected humour. He comes across as a very ambitious poilitician, but the early years - his childhood and university years, his time as a barrister before becoming an MP, are hardly discussed at all, except for the odd poignant memory of conversations with his dying mother, and facing up to a school bully. I could have done with more of that, to gain a better insight to how his childhood and adolescence shaped his character, and who influenced his political beliefs - there is little about that. Even his earlier years in the Labour Party, and in Parliament, before assuming the leadership after John Smith's death, are lightly covered. If the book is really about "A Journey" then the first few stations were missed.
The book is really about New Labour. It's rise to government, what it did when it got there, and how it all went wrong. It's very clear that Blair was the driving force behind it, ably assisted by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell. Gordon Brown, another architect of the idea, actually comes out of this rather badly, as someone who was a great Chancellor but never really bought into the New Labour philosophy, with predictable consequences in the end. Old and New Labout stalwarts in the main are affectionately portrayed, especially the two Johns, Prescott and Reid, Charles Clark and David Blunkett. Other figures fare less well - Robin Cook, Margaret Hodge, the current leader Ed Milliband (his brother David is more liked by Blair) and especially Ed Balls were clearly not Blair's favourite people in the world, although he's far too polite to say so directly.
He comes across as very much a convictions politician, and one who at critical times was very much in tune with public opinion in fact rather than for convenience or headlines. He is very clear in describing the way his policy ideas came about and the internal battles he had to fight to get some of them adopted. On 9/11, the War on Terror and Iraq, and the subsequent public enquiries and personal condemnation he suffered, Blair is very open and I think honest, and does not attempt to pass any of the blame on to others (like Bush, or the Intelligence Services for offering flawed information and advice) as he could so easily have done. Instead, he quotes verbatim from a number of reports from the UN, the IAEA, Amnesty International and others, to illustrate the kind of information he may have been privy to (though the rest of us probably weren't) and explain why he took the decisions he did. He expresses regret at the loss of life (and in one section describes meeting the family of one killed British soldier at Downing Street, then breaking down in tears in a one-on-one conversation afterwards with the widow) but stands by the choices he made. Like Bush, he was clearly in an invidious position and did the best he could and what he thought was right at the time.
Blair also attempts something in his book that Bush didn't do - offer a personal view of the world and its current issues. "Decision Points" ends with the handover to Obama, and George heading off to a Texan sunset and barbecue: the end. But Tony, in a postscript, offers interesting and sharp views on the financial crisis, global warning, the Arab Spring, the Palestine Question and other meaty stuff. It's an interesting conclusion to an interesting book.
* * *
The interesting thing about the Blair - Bush pairing is that politically they should have been miles apart and probably loathed each other. Bush the Conservative, small government, big on tax cuts, free market economy, America first and fuck the rest of the world. Blair the progressive liberal, the Dmocrat. Bigger Government (though less than traditional Labour peeople would want). A kind of free market economy but with much more government regulation. Britian important but not the power it once was, looking more to Europe than the US, but seeing the Special Relationship as a thing of value too.
And yet, after 9/11, the arms length working relationship both admit to in their respective books grew into a close friendship and mutual admiration society. Bush admits that Blair sometimes acted as a brake to the more excessive demands from Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a tireless advocate for the Coalition and UN Resolution prior to Iraq. Blair professes an admiration for the way Bush handled himself in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and admits to having to work very hard to keep the American on the straight and narrow.
It was an odd partnership, but it worked. Whether for good or bad is a personal choice.
* * *
And now?
Well, it's all gone a bit pear shaped. Obama came into the Presidency on a wave of optimism but doesn't really seem to have lived up to the publicity and expectation. He's not helped by trying to run the country with the opposition Republicans controlling Congress. It all seems to be getting very spiteful and petty and I can't see him winning another term. A big disappointment: like John Major, who I thought offered much when he became Prime Minister but ultimately failed to deliver.
Cameron I really cannot make my mind up about at all. As a council house kid, I have a little problem with his old Etonian Rich Kid background that doesn't sit at all well with his attempts at the popular touch ("Call me Dave"....). To that extent he's a typical Old School Tory, ripe for leadership. But I don't know, he just doesn't seem to have any real policies beyond knee jerk reactions and sound bites ("The Big Society"? What the hell happened to that idea? What was it all about anyway? And now it's "Our Broken Society"......make your mind up, Dave, please!).
It's all a bit of a worry, really.
posted by Travellin' Bob @ September 23, 2011
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home