Is Blair making the supreme sacrifice?

THERE is no moral high ground in this fight towards war. The doves have their case; the hawks have theirs, leaving the majority of British people hovering uncertainly over the middle ground, tilting sincerely towards peace while knowing that someday, something will probably have to be done...

These lack of obvious certainties mean that, for a leader who dies through the ballot box rather than the bullet, any ground is extremely dangerous territory in which to plant your flag.

Yet Tony Blair has done just that. He has planted his flag on the battlefield. He has claimed the moral high ground. But he finds himself opposed by the majority of British people who are still huddling under the canvas of the peace camp - claiming the moral high ground for themselves.

Through the flaps in the tent, Mr Blair appears to be committing electoral suicide before our very eyes.

He was the most popular Prime Minister of the 20th century with two huge landslide victories; but now he is just one point ahead of the Tories and 6-1 at the bookies to be out of a job come the end of the year.

He is in so much danger that over the weekend all of his Cabinet colleagues - bar one - rushed to give him their vote of confidence. A football manager's position is at its most parlous when his club chairman offers him his undying support in his battle against a long losing run...

And the one who was deafeningly quiet in the weekend's eulogies to Mr Blair was the one who believes it is now his turn in the Prime Ministerial dug-out. Gordon Brown has been skilfully building a base for himself in the old Labour wing of the party, the wing that opposes privatisation and that only begrudgingly respects Mr Blair for ending its deprivation of power - but it has never fully committed itself to him or his "new" ideas.

It is that wing of the party that is now the most upset by Mr Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush. Anti-war and anti-American, it probably has the numbers to replace Mr Blair with Mr Brown. A poor showing at May's local elections would provide it with a momentum to pull off a coup at the autumn party conference.

But before we reach the autumn, before we even get to May, there is a war to be won. By then one party - be it Mr Blair or the peace camp - will have secured the moral high ground.

Mr Blair's claims to this high ground bear examination. Saddam Hussein is evil. He has killed one million Iraqis in 30 years - about five per cent of his population. About 135 of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five.

"Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity," argued Mr Blair in Glasgow on Sunday. "It is leaving him there that is inhumane." By and large, the Iraqi opposition agree with him.

Then there is his point of principle. Saddam is a danger to world security; in all probability he still possesses weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has time and again ordered him to dispose of them - if it does nothing to enforce its will in this most serious of cases, it has no future.

But the peace camp's claims to the high ground have equal merit. Killing innocent Iraqis is no way to depose a leader. The weapons inspectors have produced no new evidence, and the way Mr Blair and Mr Bush have prosecuted their case, passing off a 12-year-old thesis as sophisticated intelligence, has created such suspicion that all evidence will be doubted.

Then there are the peace camp's questions: where's the link with al Qaida? How do we know that cornered Saddam won't unleash his chemicals on British soldiers? How do we know whoever replaces Saddam will be any better? What terrible dangers lie ahead if America is allowed to roam the world knocking out those states it doesn't like with pre-emptive strikes? What about the hypocrisy: what about Israel (broken resolutions) or Zimbabwe (seven million being starved by its leader compared to Saddam's modest tally of one million dead)? Why is Mr Blair in Mr Bush's oily pocket?

So there is no moral high ground: Mr Blair would sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands in war tomorrow to save the lives of tens of thousands whom Saddam - and sanctions - will kill in the near future; the peace camp would save the wardead but sacrifice the Shia Muslims and the Kurds who will bear the full brunt of Saddam's fury should world attention ever shift its gaze.

There is only the uneasy middle ground which, despite the impressive size of Saturday's demonstrations, is occupied by the vast majority of people in Europe. Currently the French, German and Belgian governments are laying claim to it, as they hope against hope that they are buying time in which the inspectors can convince the world, or Saddam can be persuaded to take a less bloody way out.

But they also know that whatever the outcome, it will only have been made possible by the fearsome military kit that the Americans have parked on Saddam's doorstep with Mr Blair's unwavering support.

The middle ground is momentarily popular, but it provides no long-term solutions.

Even the Daily Mirror, which is doing especially well for itself in cheerleading for the peace camp, accepts as much. Yesterday it was shouting at Mr Blair that "you're on your own" in fighting the war. Yet inside in small print it was asking its readers to send him a letter saying: "I hereby register my opposition to any war with Iraq not justified by unequivocal UN evidence."

What is this unequivocal evidence? That Saddam has killed thousands (he has); that he has broken UN resolutions (he has); that he is a threat to world peace (he is - just look at us all staring down both barrels of a war).

So Mr Blair - a man usually ridiculed for lacking principles - has chosen his own moral high ground, planted his flag in it and is resolutely defending it.

"This is not something he's doing lightly," said Hilary Armstrong, Labour's chief whip and Mr Blair's neighbour in County Durham. "It's something he considered seriously. He understands the dangers to himself of doing this."

But, despite Mr Blair's current unpopularity, it is only when we know where the moral high ground really is that we will be able to know if he's finished. And we'll only know where the moral high ground is when the war has begun.

If the war drags on with American smart bombs massacring civilians, the Middle East spiralling out of control and Saddam pumping out lethal chemical cocktails which kill British troops, Mr Blair may as well pack his bags and leave Downing Street before the autumn party conference.

But, what if Saddam does hand over his weapons? What if he does go gently into retirement in Libya?

Or, more feasibly, what if the war takes six largely bloodless days? The UN, having being coerced into passing a second resolution, looks on approvingly as Saddam is killed outright, and the Iraqi people welcome the Brits as conquering heroes. Enough anthrax to wipe out the Western world is discovered. The Stock Market soars; oil prices fall; the spectre of global recession stalks off disappointed into the distance.

Mr Blair will be the man who held the moral high ground alone against ferocious opposition. He will be so untouchable that even the Daily Mail will be fawning at his feet begging for a referendum so that the British people can express their joyful and heartfelt desire to join the euro at once (possibly).

When writing about war, it is always worth recalling what Wilfred Owen called the old lie about it being wonderful to die for your own country. The British people, as they lace up the doors on the peace tent, know how bloody awful any war death is, be it civilian or soldier.

When writing about the durability of a politician about to go to war, it is always worth recalling Harold Macmillan's old cliche about what shapes a political career: "Events, dear boy, events."

The biggest event of Mr Blair's career awaits him. It will probably get under way early in March when the new moon over Iraq conceals the paths of the American night-fighters.

Even if 1.5 million people did take to London's streets at the weekend, it is premature to judge Mr Blair's chances of survival until after the main event.

18/02/2003