What Would Maggie Say?

Margaret "the lady's not for turning" Thatcher pioneered the never-apologise, never-back-down school of ruthless politics. Blair, Bush and Howard are all disciples of the genre, obviously, but where has it got them?

The Financial Times reports on scathing criticism of Toony Blair from a swathe of well-connected diplomats, politicians and army members:

"In possibly the most stinging rebuke ever to a British government by its foreign policy establishment, 52 former ambassadors and international officials have written to Tony Blair telling him he is damaging UK (and western) interests by backing George W. Bush's misguided policies in the Middle East. It would be comforting to imagine that their comments will be heeded.

The signatories to the letter include many distinguished and experienced public servants. They extend beyond the 'usual suspects' of well-known Arabists, and there is every indication that many more serving and retired diplomats, as well as army officers, harbour the same misgivings.

In any case, the notion that so-called Arabists - expert in the language, culture and politics of Arab countries - should be excluded from policy because of their alleged predilection to 'go native' should be discredited by the way the Pentagon, which shut out anyone with actual knowledge of Iraq, has serially bungled the occupation."

In Australia, John Howard is facing a similar dilemma, with calls for a Royal Enquiry into the government's mis-use of intelligence data.

And in the USA... Well, US citizens seem to think that any criticism of Bush is just party politics, so they refuse to take it seriously. Maybe a scathing report from the 9/11 commision will make them think differently? Or maybe the growing lack of international support for their cowboy policies will be enough to stop the rot.