Tough standing shoulder to shoulder

Blair faces eruptions on many fronts over his support for the President, writes Jo Dillon

Tony Blair's resolve to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States in the war against terror remains unshaken – only last week he laid out the case for a pre-emptive military strike on Iraq once again. But as plans are drawn up, evidence of Saddam's nuclear weapons capability awaits publication and the US champs at the bit, the Prime Minister is cautious.

Behind his tough talk lie complex political and military realities that do not seem to afflict George Bush. Mr Blair is not the President of the US, he cannot simply give the word and watch the biggest fighting force in the world go into battle.

First, the Prime Minister has to deal with British MPs anxious to be given a say about any potential attack. A significant number of Labour backbenchers including Tam Dalyell, the father of the House of Commons, and the anti-war campaigner Alice Mahon are opposed to action in principle. So far they have been denied a Commons vote on the issue.

Their response has been to warn of revolt at this autumn's Labour Party conference, intense open criticism of the Government and a concerted campaign backed by MPs from other parties, peace campaigners, trade unionists and, significantly, representatives of Muslim communities. Street protests unlike any seen in the US will certainly follow if Britain goes to war again.

The dissidents point to fears that invading Iraq could fracture multiculturalism in the UK and trigger civil unrest. They also warn that it could provoke violence in and between other nations. Despite their protestations, Mr Blair remains unmoved.

Downing Street insiders stress his determination to deal with Iraq's capability to create "weapons of mass destruction" was absolute before 11 September. The events of that day merely demonstrated to the Prime Minister the dangers of failing to act.

However, there are also questions over Britain's ability to take part in an invasion. The UK's armed forces are hugely overstretched already, military experts agree, with troops stationed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, the Falkland Islands and elsewhere.

There is no question of the armed forces refusing to follow orders, but they would be under "severe pressure" according to Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies if they had to field the likely armed division of up to 25,000 men supported by a further 15,000 logistic troops.

The cost of a campaign in Iraq would also be significant. Major Heyman believes the Chancellor would have to set aside £1bn to fight an initial campaign. The final cost could be "a lot more than that", he says.

Toppling the regime could be achieved in between three and six months, but Major Heyman warns: "There will be serious opposition to this in the Muslim world."

The longer a campaign goes on, however, the tougher Mr Blair's task of taking the British public and his own party with him will be. Standing shoulder to shoulder with his much more powerful friend across the Atlantic could mean turning his back on some old allies back home, increasing the Prime Minister's sense of isolation.