Little Man, You've Had Some Busy Days

So goodbye to Tony Blair.  The man who became Prime Minister in May 1997 after defeating by a landslide the most incompetent government Britain has had since the war, and whom some saw as a bright hope for the future -- assuming he represented the kind of future you wanted -- has announced that he will be stepping down at  the end of next month. And few will be sorry to see him go.  Whatever else he may have achieved, and there are some who would say that that is a not inconsiderable body of work, he will be forever tainted by and reviled for his biggest mistake, which was to get Britain involved in the disastrous and completely unnecessary war in Iraq. 

He has been accused of lying to Parliament in order to justify the invasion.  I am not convinced.  He is more a man for spin than subterfuge and deep down I think he wants to do what he thinks is right. He’ll bend a few rules but he has his limits.  I am fairly sure that he was more lied to than lying.  At the time, I think he really did believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the west, that could be deployed and used at 45 minutes notice.  He was given doctored and falsified intelligence.  So in we went.

The same intel, I’m sure, was shown to President Bush, to justify a war against a country that had had nothing to do with  9/11 and had no WMD.  I suspect that he needed little persuasion to get rid of Saddam and he genuinely wanted to give the Iraqis a better life. Such was the man’s very limited knowledge of anything outside the USA, or indeed outside his own experience, that he probably did believe that the invaders would be greeted as liberators and that what the Iraqis wanted above all was the creation of Main Street, Baghdad, complete with Wal-Mart, McDonalds and everything else that Americans like him think the whole world wants.  And quite a lot of the world does, but not, as we have seen, Iraq.

As we know from observation, the military campaign against the Iraqi army was short and decisive.  But in its place we see the coalition armies bogged down in an unending struggle against terrorism.  Not just Al-Qaida, though they are undoubtedly involved, but Shi-ites killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shi-ites, and Iraqis of all persuasions killing members of the armies of occupation, who may have rid the country of Saddam’s regime but also have destroyed its infrastructure, plundered it, killed tens of thousands of civilians, most of whom have never raised a hand against the coalition.  Terrorism is like the hydra of mythology: a many-headed monster, and every time you cut off one of its heads, two more grow in its place.  It just goes on and on; on the day that Alec Baldwyn’s rant against his daughter was headline news, 174 Iraqis were killed by a bomb detonated inside a mosque. That hardly rated a mention here – but they were just Ay-rabs after all.

In fact Iraqis have been dying at a far greater rate since 2003 than they did when Saddam was in power.  The nation’s infrastructure has been destroyed and  400,000 of its citizens displaced.  Their one real asset, their oil reserves, will have to be used to pay western companies to rebuild and repair the damage that the west caused in the first place.

So what I want to know, what I genuinely would like someone to explain to me, is what the victory in Iraq is that the right goes on about: if you support the troops, then you will want victory in Iraq, the keep saying.  I do support the troops -- and I want them brought home before another 3000 of them are killed.  But can someone define victory for me, please?  Will it be when every last Iraqi man, woman and child is dead?  Does anyone imagine that there will be a sort of terrorist Appomatox when a treaty will be signed and it will all be over?  That won’t happen. There will be no grand surrender ceremony on a battleship, with speeches and handshakes.  What on earth will constitute victory?  If one terrorist faction does decide to cease operations, it will have no influence at all on any of the others.

The situation in Iraq has the potential to drag on and on for decades. It has contributed to President Bush’s popularity rating being at an all-time low and it has ensured that Tony Blair will leave office an unpopular failure.  In Britain, the premiership usually ends badly – since the Second World War only Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson were able to leave office at times of their own choosing, undefeated and with dignity.  When he addressed both hoses of Congress in 2003, Tony Blair said the freedom and democracy were not jus American values, or western values, but the universal values of the free human spirit.  He might have added that another universal value is the desire not to be invaded, occupied and destroyed -- by anyone, no matter how well meaning.  That he didn’t understand this means that his ten years in power will be forever stained by this squalid, hugely unpopular war, and while he goes off to do whatever it is the ex-Prime Ministers do, he will chiefly be remembered from dragging Britain into it.  Off you go, Tony.  Quick as you like.

Comments

[Wylie Kinson]

I feel sorry for TB -- he got suckered into a war he thought was right and didn't have the balls to get out of it when the lies unravelled. Sadly, that'll be his legacy.
Why do the 'right' equate patriotism with supporting the troops? I just don't get that. I support the troops, but not the mission. I support the troops, but support the opportunity for them to come home alive and in one piece. I support the troops, but not the killing of thousands or innocent Iraqis.
Oh thanks, Nicholas... you've gone and got my dander up! Again!! You and your socially relevant commentaries. Sheesh...
Tomorrow, please give us your views on drivel -- like Paris Hilton's impending imprisonment. Or ice cream. But not gas prices :) :)

[EuroPosh]

come on, you have to give the guy a little credit for standing up against the public opinion at home and pushing for what he believe was a right thing to do (Britain's military involvement in this unfortunate war). it was obviously wrong, but you know that it's harder to convince Europeans to support any war than it is with Americans.

[Your Missus.]

You know I love Blair and I know how you don't. I've linked to my note (I'm sure you don't mind...)

[Shari]

Wow, very thoughtful commentary! It's great to hear people speak up about these things, instead of falling back on tired liberal claptrap about supporting troops or whatnot. It all sounds too much like "go with the flow" to me. I'm with you. I DO support the troops, of all nationalities, but I respect and value them too much to support a war which is packing too many of them off to an unnecessarily early grave.

And I agree - I, too, would like a definition of victory to be clearly defined. To start a journey without the end in mind... everybody knows that leads to nowhere.