BRITAIN: The British Prime Minister would not relish being left the sole apologist for war, writes Frank Millar, in London
Tony Blair once famously resisted BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman when he asked him if he prayed with President George W. Bush. But is the British Prime Minister praying privately for a Bush victory in next Tuesday's presidential election?
Does he fear the neocon Texan's ejection from the White House would leave him dangerously isolated over the war in Iraq - and, even, that a last-gasp success for Senator John Kerry might trigger a Labour revolt against his continued premiership?
To pose the questions at all is to reflect the extraordinary role-reversal that has taken place in British politics - or at least in the leaderships of the two main parties - since President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq almost 18 months ago.
Mr Blair, don't forget, was President Bill Clinton's best buddy. British Labourites - both "Old" and "New" - were openly contemptuous of Dubya's presidential ambitions four years' ago.
Many of them still believe Al Gore actually won that race. And most are convinced President Gore would never have gone to war to topple Saddam.
If only those Florida "chads" had hung the other way, most Labour MPs suspect, there would never have been a war without end on terrorism, nor would they have heard of Guantanamo Bay, or suffered the humiliation and soul-searching which followed the revelation of the torture inflicted in Abu Ghraib.
Now, in the final days of a desperately close campaign, Labour politicians can again allow themselves to hope.
For if Senator Kerry could unseat the guy seeking re-election as a "war president", would that not mark a return to a more comfortable world order? Could not the comrades more confidently strut their stuff as true "internationalists", upholding "consensus" politics and the authority of the UN? True, a Kerry presidency would have to show itself no less tough on terrorism. But might a Democratic White House not also have a greater understanding of what might be called "the causes of terrorism"?
President Kerry surely would reinvigorate the search for a settlement in the Middle East. And hey - some credibility might even attach itself to Mr Blair's boast of Britain as "bridge" between Europe and the US.
Above all, in this benign scenario, a Kerry victory would finally give Blair the chance to escape from Iraq - because it is assumed President Kerry would be in hot pursuit of his own "exit strategy" even as he battled to internationalise the situation there following the elections scheduled for January.
Naturally and properly Mr Blair is saying nothing about the Bush/Kerry contest.
However, some of his aides dismiss the notion that a Kerry win would signal any significant change at all, much less any particular problem for Mr Blair himself.
Their ostensibly relaxed view is that in the vital areas of Iraq and the war on terror the priorities, and thus the policies, would remain the same. And since Mr Blair famously gets along with whoever he has to if it comes to it, Number 10 can anticipate an excellent working relationship with President Kerry as with Presidents Bush and Clinton before him. This is just business after all.
Yet some Labour insiders - including people who desperately want to see Mr Blair vacate Number 10 before the general election - are unconvinced by Downing Street's relaxed demeanour. And they in turn dismiss suggestions that Mr Blair actually wants or needs a Bush win.
The suspicion that, had he a vote in Tuesday's election, Mr Blair would cast it for Dubya was rehearsed by the brilliant Andrew Rawnsley in his Observer column last Sunday. The mind of the prime minister had been summarised thus by someone well placed to know it: "Tony thinks the world is a very dangerous and precarious place. Bush is the tough guy who keeps the bad guys under their rocks."
According to this assessment - which it should be noted is borne out by everything said by Mr Blair and on his behalf since the events of September 11th, 2001 - Mr Blair feels his fate is intertwined with that of President Bush.
A defeat for Bush would be hailed as a victory for Islamic extremists in Iraq and elsewhere - and viewed back home in Britain as a repudiation of the war by the American people themselves.
In such circumstances it is not hard to imagine convulsions within the Labour Party, already seized by the leadership battle to come following Mr Blair's declared intention to stand down before the end of a third term.
Might a pre-election leadership challenge be triggered by a surge in support for the anti-war Liberal Democrats and instantly awakened fears of a hung parliament next year? Proponents of the alternative view accept these risks exist but suggest Mr Blair and his allies would be better advised to focus on the dangers if President Bush wins a second term.
In that event they argue Mr Blair will find himself with no means of escape, tied-in more closely in Iraq and the war on terror, as the White House turns its attention to Iran, and Labour MPs become ever more fearful and fractious.
It is a powerful argument, which might ultimately prove correct.
However it is also self-serving, rooted in the view that Mr Blair ultimately believes in nothing, and offered in the cheerful hope that - whoever wins on Tuesday - the Prime Minister stands to lose.
President Bush might yet survive to cause the Prime Minister further political pain and grief. But it is hard to see how Mr Blair could welcome a Kerry victory which leaves him the sole apologist for what he and President Bush have done together.