Blair's Military Delusions.

Which cretinous spin doctor decided that Tony Blair deliver his defence lecture from on board a naval vessel? This obvious stunt just served to remind everyone of George Bush's famous speech from the deck of an American carrier after the first stage of the war in Iraq when he declared the war was over and the US had won. Over 2000 more US and British service people and countless thousands of Iraqis have died since that supposed victory celebration.

Blair's speech was equally delusional, littered with statements of the blindingly obvious, further desperate attempts to rewrite history to justify his disastrous invasion of Iraq and more irresponsible slurs on the Muslim community, which will innevitably contribute to the stoking of the flames of Islamophobia.

In the speech the Prime Minister remained in a state of denial over the role his support for Bush's foreign policies, particularly the invasion of Iraq, has played in recruiting terrorists. He sought to portray himself as the leader of a warrior nation taking the decisions to exercise "hard power", i.e. to wage war, which other feckless politicians and countries have shirked.

Tony Blair has used the British army to enable him to strut the world stage, making the most catastrophic foreign policy mistakes in the history of this country since Suez, which many believe have been paid for with the suffering and lost lives of both British military and Iraqi civilian families.

He tried to argue in his speech that the choice for our country was between a country that could use both humanitarian and miltary means to secure peace and progress in the world or a country that took the easy way out by avoiding conflict and just concentrating on the much lees risky role of conflict prevention and peacekeeping.

This is the classic New Labour rhetorical device of setting out unreal options. Blairite sophistry at its worst.

The choice is not between some cowardly avoidance of one's duty and the brave commitment to war and blood sacrifice.

It is the choice between a Prime Minister who seeks to promote and secure peace and one that engages in the bloody invasion of a country in support of a Bush regime whose motives were to secure the control Iraqi oil and a dominant strategic military presence in the Middle East.

The Vietnam Strategy Failed Once and in Iraq it will Fail Again.

As predicted Bush has announced his troop surge strategy and there has been not a word from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor criticising this folly. Instead we are told that there is a "symmetry" between the US and British military strategies.

I have to say that the only symmetry I see is the dreadful tragedy of virtually every Prime Minister's Question Time being prefaced by the tributes to recent British casualties in Iraq and the sending of our heartfelt condolences to their families, with a similar tragic body count being undertaken in towns and cities across the US.

To counter any obvious assessments that an increase in US troops could lead to more British troops being sent to Iraq, the Government spin doctors have used this period to suggest that it is hoped that there will be some British troop withdrawals by the Summer.

The reality is more likely to be that the increase in US military activity will result in a corresponding increase in the pressure and demands placed upon British forces, with subsequent demands for an increase in the deployment of British troops.

Let me make it clear. Any increase in the use of British military forces must be authorised by Parliament and I am calling upon the leadership of the Labour party to give that commitment now.

In addition, if Blair and Brown sanction the increased use of British forces in Iraq, I will seek to obtain sufficient nominations from MPs to trigger an immediate leadership challenge.

We cannot stand by and allow Blair and Brown to put further lives at risk in our name without the membership of our party being given the opportunity to have its say.

My fear now is that the failure of Bush, Blair and Brown to make a serious attempt to engage in a diplomatic and peaceful resolution of the crisis in Iraq means that even when US and British troops are withdrawn the bloodbath will continue.

Why can't Bush, Blair and Brown just learn from history?

The Vietnam strategy of pouring in more and more troops failed once and will fail again.

The Test of Brown's Independence from Bush: Will he oppose Bush's plans for a troops surge in Iraq?

On Tuesday it is confidently expected that Bush will announce a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq in a desperate last ditch attempt to pacify the state. Bush and Blair's hope is that this will enable America and Britain to reduce their commitment of military resources and allow US and British companies to get on with exploiting Iraq's vast oil wealth, as exposed in today's Independent.

At the same time it has become increasingly public knowledge that the Bush regime has given the ok to Israel to prepare a missile and/or air attack on Iran.

It is almost impossible to find any expert commentator that believes the "troops surge" strategy will work. In fact most agree with General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, that the "surge strategy will backfire."

Where is the New Labour leadership in all this?

Clearly the Prime Minister must be aware of the Bush policy decision on both Iraq and Iran and by his silence we can only judge that he is supporting Bush once again.

The real test of judgement and leadership over these issues falls not on Tony Blair but on Gordon Brown.

In his interview with Andrew Marr today, despite supporting the invasion of Iraq and supporting every foriegn policy measure demanded of Britain by Bush and Blair, the Chancellor is now assuring us that if he becomes leader Britain will pursue a more independent foreign policy from the Bush administration.

Well here is the first oportunity for Gordon Brown to demonstrate how independent his foreign policy would be.

As General Clark states in Iraq "the neocons' vision has failed." Britain needs to differentiate itself from the failed and increasingly dangerous Middle East policy of George Bush.

I will be tabling an Early Day Motion on the first day of Parliament tomorrow which will express opposition to any further increase in US or British troops in Iraq and to an Israeli attack on Iran. The EDM will call for the development of an exit strategy for Britain from Iraq based upon diplomacy not miltary action and on the political engagement of Iran and Syria in securing peace in Iraq.

The test of the Chancellor's new found independence will be whether he publicly supports this approach or remains silent whilst the Bush regime blunders further into igniting the Middle East.