Whether or not this is a war for oil's sake, the fact that much of the world sees it that way is dangerous for the United States, to our soldiers, and to our (few) remaining allies. Tony Blair is bowing under the denunciation of much of his own party and country, desperately trying to position himself on the side of principal rather than imperialist greed.

Having watched him do what Dubya could never accomplish -- go out into his country and address his opponents -- I even believe that Blair means what he says and that he, far more than George W. Bush, is sincere in his belief that Saddam Hussein represents a genuine threat (to Europe, by the way). But the trouble is, even with a strong political position (stronger than the press would have you believe, since he doesn't have to stand for reelection until 2006,) the torturous trip back into the United nations breach is having a withering effect on Blair, who is facing a revolt inside the Labor Party and a threatened no confidence vote and cabinet resignations if he sends British troops into Iraq without UN approval.

And that, unfortunately, is the rub. The U.S. doesn't necessarily need British troops to defeat Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard (the Iraqi troops most likely to put up a fight). God knows a couple hundred Aussies and Bulgarians won't make the difference between victory and defeat (Spain and Italy, for all their "support" aren't sending their soldiers to fight and die for our cause). But we do need the 40,000 or so British troops -- mostly to secure the oil.

Here's why. The Bush administration has so damaged its own argument and credibility with the rest of the world regarding its motives for war (the Project for the New American Century may not get ink on American TV but it's big news overseas), that we need a proxy force to be the one taking Kirkuk. If our soldiers are seen putting out the fires set by Hussein to deny us what he and much of the world sees as our prime objective -- control of Iraq's vast oil wealth -- then we win the war and lose the aftermath. Saddam Hussein has all but laid it out for the world -- America is attacking Iraq to steal her oil, and Iraq would rather burn it themselves then give it to Bush and his cabal. Better, then, to let the British steal it for us.

So Our Man Bush is grudgingly giving Blair what he wants - another useless trip to the UN and a hope for a "moral majority" to provide a modest fig leaf for our inevitable invasion of Baghdad. The irony for Mr. Blair, however, is that the very process he begged George W. Bush to reenter is what has him twisting in the wind today. Many analysts are saying it would have been better for Blair to have foregone the second resolution and stood his ground in Parliament on the authority of 1441, rather than risking a global rebuke and marching British troops in anyway.

Whether or not Bush and Blair bag the essential nine votes (by bribing Cameroon, threatening Mexico, cooing at Chile and pitch-forking Guinea, not to mention the ham-handed pressure being applied to our "friends" in Pakistan), the fact remains that even if the U.S. and UK lose in the Security Council by veto, that veto carries the full weight of international law. Just ask the Israelis, who have escaped official condemnation for their brutality in the Palestinian territories any number of times by virtue of the veto power of the United States.

Joy-Ann L. Reid is News Editor at NBC6.net in Miami/Ft. Lauderdale

###