President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, are statesmen of moral clarity, staunch allies in war -- and stand shoulder to shoulder in press conferences.  But there are differences.

When the Republican speaks on national security, he stands on firm ground.  When the Labour leader invades a sovereign state, and causes civilian suffering, he risks losing his party and his government.

When Bush called for replacing the Iraqi regime, Blair said merely removing its weapons of mass destruction would constitute regime change.  While Bush has sought a predominantly American occupation of Iraq until democracy can be imposed, Blair has sought an active role for the United Nations or other multinational force.

For Bush, removing a dangerous dictatorship and spreading democracy and freedom is sufficient moral purpose.  Blair also needs to show that the war reflects a more humanitarian cause.  Hence, the risk taken early in the conflict to sail the Sir Galahad supply ship past the sea mines to deliver humanitarian aid.

For the prime minister, the war is a gamble.  His forces have made a proportionately larger commitment to the war with Iraq; his population only began to approve of the war after British troops saw action -- and much of his party opposed the war.

In fact, the Labour party, both in parliament and in the country, is deeply divided on the war.  The European Union, at a critical time of expansion, also is divided.

Labour suffered a defection by 139 MPs (members of parliament) on an anti-war amendment.  In parliament, where just forty government rebels at one time constitute a serious protest; this one was historic.  A former Foreign Secretary resigned from government.  Ironically, it was Opposition votes from the Conservatives that kept Blair on the war path -- and in office.

Ironically, because in 1982 when he stood (ran) in a by-election (special election) during the Falklands /Malvinas battle, Blair lost badly to the Conservative wartime surge.  But in that case, British forces and people had been directly attacked.

Labour has always had an idealistic and pacifist wing.  Many traditional socialists were also disgruntled with the middle road policies taken by Blair, and have opposed the war as a chance to redirect the party.  In the local branch parties, although new members were attracted in the 1990s, many Labour members left after the Gulf War of 1991.  More may leave this time.

Since Blair has taken a bigger risk on the war, it is not surprising he seeks some help on developing the peace not only in Iraq but also in Northern Ireland and in Israel.  Unlike for President Bush, a military victory alone will not serve him politically. He also needs to win the peace.