Tony Blair is in political, rather than lessons learned, mode
It’s sepulchral in the room itself. Reg Keys, sitting in the second row, stares grimly at the TV screen of Blair’s face unflinchingly.
Mr Blair’s bodyguards – one standing, one sitting – stare out at the public. Mr Blair himself often seems to be in political more than “lessons learned” inquiry mode.
As Sir Roderic read out his 10-minute summary of the existing legal position, Tony Blair scribbled furiously on his file notes, flicking backwards and forwards in a file that bulges with legal and government document photocopies – I could see lots of marginalia and triple underlining.
In the end, the legal section presented him with little difficulty.
At the end of this latest session, Mr Blair admitted that the problems of al-Qaida marching into Iraq (and the collapse of the Iraqi civil service ) were the main problems we failed to identify and that if the US or anyone else goes into a country again for similar reasons in the future they should go fully equipped to do confident nation-building and expect the worst in terms of al-Qaida or other similar forces doing their best to frustrate things.
There are 9 comments on this post
Tony Blair is in the only mode he knows. That is his person.He was true to himself throughout his term and continues to be, whether right or wrong.
There’s a clear divergence of views about the motivations for the invasion and its legality. The US argument is that the Kuwait Gulf war was ended by a UN agreement that the Iraqi government would fully co-operate with a complete revelation and UN overseen destruction of all its WMDs and potential capabilities. Saddam deified that agreement and ten subsequent Security Council resolutions. Some say that non-compliance requires a specific UN authorisation for military actions, others that 1441 is enough and yet others that serial breaches of the 1991 UN agreement were more than sufficient to warrant invasion.
Which we each chose depends on just how seriously we view UN peace agreements. If they’re to be effective in future, somebody must enforce them. When clear that the UN couldn’t, the US led coalition sought to do that but was clearly inadequate peacekeepers and reconciliators in the aftermath.
Either way, this enquiry and Butler’s are together major changes that add to the change made by the Dossier and HoC debate that have changed forever how these decisions are made in our country.
These changes to British governance are surely good things, aren’t they?
During the enquiry I was distracted by remarks that the Attorney generals’ interpretation of 1441 was accurate upon the say so of Lord Goldsmith himself and a faith in his opinion.
Perhaps to be truly objective the panel should have read 1441 for themselves.
Tony Blair is a supreme politician, raising the “2010 Question” was sheer politics adhering to a New Labour strategem followed since 1995; “In certain instances a policy area may be one in which Labour would want to say as little as possible unprompted in this situation flexibility can be used between having only or two key points and shifting the emphasis an to the most likely questions to be asked.”
The 2010 Question is a defensive diversion.
Chilcott needs to examine Ministry of Defence spending patterns in the years leading up to the Iraq War. These will demonstrate movement towards a war footing well in advance of the Cabinet decision. (Comparision of the spending pattern with the build up to the 1st Gulf War may also prove enlightening.)
The fact is that Saddam Hussein was never a threat to Britain or to Britain’s interests. He was, however, a growing threat to Israel and Israel’s interests. Remember Israel ? That’s the country which disregards every UN resolution with impunity.
Because all political parties of the US and UK are in hock to the Israeli Lobby, they were going to invade Iraq regardless of any UN involvement – it was never ‘if’, it was only ever ‘when’.
Blair’s job was simply to cover up the true motivation – he continues to succeed because no-one has the courage to challenge the string-pullers for fear that they will play the ‘Holocaust Card’ again.
Until there is some honesty about the Middle East situation, Iraq will be followed by Iran, then Yemen, then whoever else is perceived as threatening the Israeli state – which, remember, remains the only state in the region which actually does possess weapons of mass destruction in vast quantities. Strange that !
All we can do now, it seems, is to place Tony Blair’s legacy within an historical context. He has in effect (so far) ‘got away with it’, the crime of aggression that is, contrary to the rules applicable to notions of a ‘just war’.
And his legacy could have been so different. He could have been ‘great’! He knows it, his wife Cheri knows it, his family will forever be reminded that he could have been great. His friends and collegues know it, even Alistar Cambell knows it. Blair and his ‘people’ are going down in history as ‘could have beens…’.
And it is such a shame, and as much as it galls me to say it, maybe Plato was on to something when he said that our leaders should be selected from that aristocracy (or words to that effect), its like the saying we have here in N. Ireland…”you can take the man out of the bog…but you can’t take the bog out of the man…”.
A clever man yes, but his intelligence lacked the depth of history and learning neccessary for greatness. Hopefully Pope Benedict will remind him of his teaching “freedom without truth is no freedom at all…” how true… when it comes to the war raged on Iraq.
No, I am not so sure about that. I think Blair was seeing the truth around the constraints of convention.
Sometimes it takes a great man to look more closely at historical events and see the trends which have taken Countries to disaster.
The sentiment re freedom and truth is so relevant right from the particular to the general. Its central ethic makes me emotional. What is the whole truth though?
I think without Iraq historial opinions on his legacy would still be mixed; he continued privatisation and appealed to the ultra rich, therefore turning Labour into a right wing party and castrating the left as there is now no viable alternative, unlike under Thatcher. Also, the terrorist attacks in Ireland have restarted and perhaps letting all the IRA terrorists walk free was giving too much away. I think the wars, the ‘special relationship’ (turing Britain into a protectorate), the campaign against human rights, the recession and Blair’s shameless post-ministerial career makes him the worst PM in modern history.
Dear Margaret, do you mind if I ask that you expand the thought above…”Blair was seeing the truth around the constraints on convention…”, I dont think that you are saying that because he believed [in] ‘it’, that it was true, even if only for him and therfore the war was justified?
Of course truth is a complex notion, and I’m not sure that there is such a thing as the whole truth, however there are I believe certain truths, (which maybe at some stage will add up to the whole truth). And a certain truth is that surely the events of the second world war and the holocust opened our eyes, and we said “no more”. However we realise that the human condition is such that there may be a need for a ‘just war’ & Jus ad bellum & Jus in bello & Jus post bellum set out the rules under which war migh be justified. I’m convinced Blair failed to meet the requirements for a just war.
My thought is that Blair could have been great…”what happened!!!???” Justice demands that we ask this question and that we get the truth, maybe not the whole truth, but a certain truth, an admission that the war on Iraq was never ‘just’ and therfore was never ‘right’.
Cheers ya