Posted Sunday, November 16, 2003; 13.45GMT

But Blair always insists he backs the various unpopular fronts of Bush's war on terror because this is Britain's fight, too. "I believe passionately in the cause to which I have committed myself," he said: tackling terror and the "extremism and fanaticism" that breed it. "I think if we had backed away from Iraq it would have been a disastrous thing for the security of my country, never mind the wider world." Whatever the focus groups may be telling him, he exuded confidence that the visit would provide a bully pulpit for convincing people that Bush is not "sitting there just looking for the next place to invade," but is seriously tackling the key security challenge of the 21st century. "I think this is exactly the right time [for him] to come, not just here but also for the message around the rest of Europe," Blair insisted.

But with U.S. officials scrambling to hand back power to Iraqis with a haste they used to insist was impossible — and on a schedule that happens to match the needs of a President seeking re-election — the glitter of dining at Buckingham Palace will have a grim backdrop. This visit was penciled in 18 months ago, but "detailed planning started when it was 'Mission Accomplished,'" says a White House aide, referring to the balmy days when Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to declare victory. "Now they're stuck with it. The world is a far different place."

The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are good at picking soft targets, and European opinion is certainly one of those. Two days after the Italian police were bombed, nine Portuguese journalists were ambushed by gunmen near Iraq's border with Kuwait as they drove to cover the arrival of 128 Portuguese military policemen sent to help coalition forces. The attack on the reporters (one was wounded, another was kidnapped and later released) provoked a torrent of criticism. "The Americans and the British are responsible for this war," said a caller to a TV program on the war. "Let them fight it."

Across Europe, polls show persistent unease about the occupation. Responding to the attack on the Italian policemen, former Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, leader of the Left Democrats, the leading opposition party, blasted a "sequence of errors and misguided evaluations" in Iraqi policy. The dilemma is that abandoning Iraq would guarantee its slide into anarchy. Despite his attack on Berlusconi's policy, D'Alema declared that "We cannot ask for the pullout of our contingent." Like many Europeans on the left, his dispute is not about ends but means: he wants to transfer political control from the American proconsul Paul Bremer to a representative empowered by the U.N., after which he would back "a renewal of European involvement." An American diplomat is sure the horror of an even more chaotic Iraq limits how far U.S. and European views can diverge, whatever the suicide bombers may do. "Geography is destiny," he says. "Europe is closer than we are. Failure in Iraq is in no one's interest, least of all those who have been most awkward." By that logic, Bush and the Europeans just have to get along better.

That's already been happening. U.S. officials bristle at the suggestion they have been taking French advice, but the quicker transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis partly tracks what France and Germany (and behind the scenes, Britain) have been advising — though the change of tack has been sparked more by growing chaos on the ground than diplomatic cables. "The Americans are more open to arguments," says a German official. "There is a lot of uncertainty in Washington. On the other side, the Europeans, even those who were against the war, are interested in stability."

In advance of his trip, Bush projected an emollience that signals a newfound desire for friends and influence in what his Defense Secretary once dismissed as "Old Europe." Last week he awarded America's highest civilian decoration to outgoing NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, a Briton, pouring praise on his "legacy of effective multilateralism" — an "ism" that Bush officials have usually employed as a curse word. In his interviews with British journalists, which came complete with a folksy tour of the Oval Office, he made fun of his own verbal gaffes, tried to counter his warmongering image by backing diplomacy for handling Iran and North Korea, and displayed a relaxed attitude toward the development of a European defense force. The agreeable tone of this p.r. offensive was worked out in advance with Blair, whose aides late last week were suggesting helpful fixes to Bush's big speech in London. It will reach to be "visionary," in the words of a White House official, stressing Bush's desire to be tough not only on terrorism but on the causes of terrorism: poverty, ignorance, disease. But instead of Parliament, which Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had the honor of addressing, Bush's venue is Banqueting House on Whitehall. There the government controls the invitations — wanting no repeat of the heckling Bush took last month in Australia's Parliament.

The mood music aimed at Europe from Washington does appear to be getting slightly sweeter. The Administration has backed, if skeptically, the joint British-French-German initiative to curtail Iran's nuclear program. Working-level cooperation has improved on enhancing NATO and sharing information among law enforcement officials. "There's a thick web of interchange, much of which is not going too badly," says Christopher Makins, president of the Atlantic Council in Washington.

But there are limits. On Iraq, the bottom line for attracting serious European support, both in money and more troops, is a switch to U.N. administration. Bremer has announced a new timetable and procedure for transferring power to Iraqis by next summer, but there's no sign of a bigger U.N. role in that process. Blair himself has been beseeching Bush all year to be more forthcoming on Guantánamo, where nine British citizens are among the prisoners detained as "unlawful combatants" without access to lawyers, facing trial in military tribunals almost universally denounced in Britain as lacking due-process protections. Blair has said that unless their trials can meet minimum standards, he'll insist on their return to Britain — though it's hard to see how the U.S. could permit this without prompting similar demands from other countries. It will dog Blair throughout the summit if this problem isn't solved, but all Bush could reveal to British TV journalist David Frost for an interview shown Sunday was murk: "They will go through a military tribunal at some point in time, which is ... an international court — or in line with international courts." Huh?

What Bush really wants to do this week is make Europe take another look at him. "Very few Europeans have listened to extensive comments from this President," says his communications director Dan Bartlett. "It's usually chopped up into the stereotypical narrative. They are going to see a side of this President they don't know." He'll attend a round table with aids victims, delighted to show off his "compassion" and his government's $15 billion pledge to aids programs in poor countries. He'll meet with the families of British victims of Sept. 11 and of soldiers killed in Iraq. In Blair's northeast constituency of Sedgefield, Bush will chat with the locals at a school and over lunch in a picture-perfect olde English inn.

It will be a intriguing double act, the Tony and George show. "Blair's attitude is, 'Bring it on,'" says an aide. "If you're confident in your argument, you can win, and he always is confident." What Bush lacks in eloquence he will try to make up in projection. The political risk for them both is a bunch of ugly TV pictures of protesters wrecking their party. The risk for Europe and the world is that, however convinced and eloquent they may be, their determination to stick in Iraq does not equate to knowing how to fix it.

With reporting by Martha De La Cal/Lisbon, John F. Dickerson/Washington, James Graff/Paris, Jeff Israely/Rome, Elinor Shields/London and Charles P. Wallace/Berlin

Previous | 1 | 2

	Premium Content Iraq — The Miscalculations [Oct. 6, 2003] Mission not accompished, how the U.S. got Iraq so wrong Wanted [Nov. 24, 2003] The search for a credible Iraqi president War Casualty [Aug. 4, 2003] The Blair governement on the rack over WMD Untruth and Consequences [Jul. 21, 2003] Bush faces the music over flawed claims Should We Attack Iraq [Sept. 16, 2002] How the Bush administration made its case Search all issues of TIME Magazine