The US trip dangers for Blair

Analysis By Mark Mardell BBC chief political correspondent

The times when photocalls with the secretary general of the United Nations and the leader of the free world belonged to the dignified part of the constitution are long gone.

This trip is fraught with dangers for a prime minister haunted by the Iraq war, in alliance with a president heartily detested by most in the Labour Party.

Bush and Blair at a previous summit

It has a ghastly element of deja vu about it.

First stop the UN in New York and then the White House in Washington. It is all reminiscent of that frantic, failed diplomacy just over a year ago aimed at getting an agreement for a controversial war.

Blair, the "transatlantic bridge", didn't get that agreement and when the two men warmly shake hands and meet the press they will be as much under siege as Falluja, with ghostly voices off, from Europe and the UK and now increasingly the USA itself, saying "We told you so!"

Those who supported the war will not be any more supportive as a result of this visit, but opponents will find new energy for fresh criticisms.

For, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair's justification for war has become a peaceful, democratic Iraq free of Saddam Hussein.

Private questions?

Iraq is clearly not at peace, and that in itself puts a big question mark over the creation of a democracy.

Put crudely, the question is whether a transfer of power to an unelected group of Iraqis in a few weeks time is more likely to lead to proper elections or civil war.

Put even more crudely can democracy be flourishing by the time of Presidential elections in November, or even the more distant British general election?

Iraqis may be able to take full control of the ministry for this and for that, they won't be able to command or direct the coalition forces who will remain in the driving seat

Although there won't be a hint of it in public, some expect Mr Blair to raise questions in private about the recent "robust" tactics of the American forces.

Certainly one gets the impression from the British military in Iraq, with their experience of Northern Ireland, that chasing after the bad guys with all guns blazing accompanied by a series of massive explosions may be very satisfying and even make for a decent Hollywood film, but falls far short of the requisite for nation building.

It's pretty certain that neither man can countenance a delay in the handover of power to the Iraqis in the face of the recent flare up of violence and disorder.

Tremendous risks

Although voices on both sides of the Atlantic are urging such a delay in the handover, planned for the end of June, this is a bit of a red herring.

The prime minister has a healthy US fanbase

In Iraq power certainly grows from the barrel of a gun and while Iraqis may be able to take full control of the ministry for this and for that, they won't be able to command or direct the coalition forces who will remain in the driving seat.

It's likely that Tony Blair will seek to disguise the very real problems with another mission to the United Nations, attempting to get more countries involved in sending troops to Iraq to restore and maintain order.

The trouble is that few will want to take the tremendous risks involved without being allowed to drive the politics as well.

This part of the visit is likely to generate a few headlines about "new initiatives" but it may be more about media management than real diplomacy.

Some say that President Bush hoped this photocall with the First Ally would help his re-election.

Now, even in America, the war is not such a bonus.

Toothpaste

For Tony Blair this association at American election time does him tremendous damage in his own party.

New Labour and the Democrats have long been natural allies. Yet Mr Blair could not even bring himself to send the anti-war John Kerry congratulations when he won the nomination to be Democratic challenger to President Bush.

The official reason was that the Labour Party does not get involved in foreign elections unless it has filial links.

When the prime minister and the president met for the first time George W declared that they had such a lot in common: they both used the same brand of toothpaste

Of course the only reason that it doesn't was that the Democrats were originally seem as too right-wing, insufficiently socialist for such links to exist.

For Tony Blair to be acting as President Bush's shield against democratic attacks makes even close allies uncomfortable.

For him it is an uncomfortable reminder that if Bush loses he will be isolated as the remaining world leader who wanted the war.

When the prime minister and the president met for the first time George W declared that they had such a lot in common: they both used the same brand of toothpaste.

This week their problem is that they both share the same brand of foreign policy and to many observers it's got that clumsy squeezed-in-the-middle look.