This does not look good for Tony Blair in my opinion (especially given the “I will be with you, whatever” quote). But I don’t think it ever would be.
“Not the last resort”
by 42 Comments
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I haven’t read any of the reporting, but for me the two biggest scandals were not equipping the soldiers with the equipment necessary to do a proper job because Blair couldn’t be seen to be making preparations whilst “negotiations were ongoing’ and the lack of plan for post-war Iraq. The government is directly culpable on point one and culpable on point on point 2 in not emphasising to the Bush administration how critical this was going to be. Does nobody read their history at all ?
War should be the last resort but the scandal is that in the future military action may well be necessary and nobody’s going to do anything because of Iraq and that would be wrong. We did bugger all in the Balkans until it was almost too late and then made up for it but marching ahead into this disastrous ill-conceived venture. T
I was going to carry on and say that the pompous and right on brigade as exemplified by the honourable Stop the War coalition are are going to be crowing and doing their told you so act without, of course, examining their own inconsistencies and offering succour to victimised terrorists who feel obliged to spread carnage because it’s our fault, not theirs.
Sorry, rant over.
I will be with you whatever – didn’t Rick Astley say something similar?
Blimey, BJB, you read quick… the thing had barely been out an hour when you reached your opinion!
You weren’t the first though – the BBC reported this five minutes after Chilcot stood up:
Stop The War protest
Posted at
11:19
A leader of the Stop The War coalition has told protesters they should not accept the Chilcot report unless it includes the explicit conclusion that former prime minister Tony Blair lied about the need for the Iraq War.
So if it calls him a liar it’s a true and honest assessment of what really happened; if it doesn’t, it’s a conspiracy, whitewash, Establishment cover-up etc. So what’s the fucking point of it?
Nothing less than Blair and his supporters’ heads on plates will satisfy them, evidence or no evidence.
There is insinuation in the report that the evidence supporting invasion was manipulated, but no actual proof of this or that it was deliberate. Blair may well be guilty (my personal opinion) but the likelihood of it ever being proved “beyond reasonable doubt” is negligible.
TB has stated that he accepts full responsibility for any mistakes he has made. This is a long way short of an admission of being guilty of misconduct. He appears to be bang to rights on failure to keep parliament and even his own cabinet informed of what was being arranged between him and the White House. It also appears that the ultimate decision on the legality of joining the US in the invasion was Blair’s alone and he has yet to properly explain on what grounds his decision was made.
Much more to follow, one would think.
Chiz, if you read what I said, I made no conclusions on guilt etc. I was just saying it didn’t look good for TB. Actually my personal view aligns with what Mike_H says above. Yes I was at that march, but that doesn’t mean I wholeheartedly support theStop The War coalition. I mean is George Galloway still a member?
Yes, basically if he floats, he’s guilty; if he drowns, he’s innocent. I think that’s how it works.
Basically, I’m deeply suspicious of Blair’s motives but I don’t expect him to be held to account because there’s no actual proof and I don’t think I really care anymore.
The only thing that riles me is that -maybe- if this Iraq farrago hadn’t occurred in such a reckless and under-planned manner, the parallel (and necessary, IMO) fighting ongoing in Afghanistan would have been conducted a little better and that my nephew Cpl. Christopher Lewis Harrison, B Company 40 Commando Royal Marines, would maybe not have been blown up and killed by an I.E.D. in Sangin.
I think you take a more nuanced view than I would be able to do in your circumstances, Mike. I can only imagine the effects on your family still.
Jesus, Mike, really sorry to hear that. Best wishes to you all.
Belated condolences & sympathy Mike. My eldest son Tom was badly injured in iraq & was very lucky to have not lost his arm.
While it is not a loss on the scale your family suffered, it gives me an inkling of how you felt at the time.
I have respect beyond words for all who served there & other places.
FWIIW, I believe that no diplomatic progress (of any real significance) will be made until the bodies of senior UK politicians sons & daughters start coming home in boxes draped with flags.
My favourite comment on this, seen repeatedly this week: “If there isn’t a law we can try him for war crimes under then we should pass one so we can”.
Some years ago, I read a very interesting account of the early Bush presidency which provided a great deal of insight surrounding the decision to invade Iraq. It’s called ‘The Price of Loyalty’ and is a fascinating, enlightening and disturbing read.
By Ron Suskind if anybody wants to chase it down. A great read, though I occasionally felt slightly uncomfortable at how much like a novel it read – all those fictionalised conversations – even though based on thousands of documents. Certainly revealing though.
The price of loyalty indeed. I am sure Blair felt he was helping his mate out due to a misguided thought that Britain really has that’ Special’ relationship. Its only ever special when it suits the USA. Remember how quickly Rumsfeld described France as ‘Old Europe’ when they wouldn’t go along with it. How US fast food chains switched from French Fires to Freedom Fries. They changed their mind again when France got involved in Libya.
Blair should have at least expected some foreplay before getting fucked.
Trouble is, Blair was the one performing the foreplay.
Tony Blair thought he was going to “do a Thatcher” and end up with a successful military campaign on his C.V. after a quick in-and-out invasion, as did GW Bush.
Thing is, he already did. Sierra Leone and Bosnia were both successful military interventions. Needless to say, opposed by the usual suspects.
Ah Stevers, your position is well documented and mine, greatly misunderstood. I put it down to my accent. Nevertheless, you set the bait, I bite.
You think ‘Blair felt he was helping his mate’? Bollocks. He was a starry-eyed groupie bitch sucked in by the bright lights and shiny faces of a US administration. He wanted entry to the NBA when, as a player, he was wearing black socks and a wristwatch.
‘Special’ only when it benefits the US? Yeah, and? Mighty Blighty wouldn’t (or hasn’t) misused international relations in its own interest? C’mon pal, no one is that stupid.
Oh yeah, Rumsfeld called France ‘Old Europe’. Check the front pages of Wee Britain’s largest selling newspapers and tell me that’s the worst thing anyone has said about France (or anywhere, come to it). Your tabloids conflate patriotism with nationalism to stir racism.
Freedom Fries still bugs you, does it? Man, you got a low threshold. It began in 2003 in the House and was rescinded in 2006. Ten years ago. US fast food chains did not ‘switch’.
As for thinking Blair got ‘fucked’? Blair was on his knees working Bush’s zip from the get-go. Too stupid and starfuckery to tell the difference between Clinton and Bush or just didn’t care. To assume he was an unwilling participant flies in the face of all evidence.
Up!!
As Zappa might have put it, he wasn’t just kneeling down, he was bending over.
All fair comment. To be scrupulously fair to Blair though, his stated position was that leaving the US to go it alone would have detrimental longer term effects. I can understand that without necessarily agreeing with it.
It seems to agree with what I’ve always thought : Blair decided to support Bush, and the rest just followed. I am still surprised that anyone ever thought any different. I understand why he decided to do that. Of course he didnt say that because he didn’t want go look like a poodle – which was dumb, because that is what we were doing. And inevitably it was a disaster.
Blair’s ego got the better of him. Overrode his good judgement.
No reason why he shouldn’t pay for his mistakes, as many others in less privileged positions have done before him.
But he won’t.
Great. Britain went to war because no-one in a position of power had seen The Rock.
FFS.
Others may have a more charitable view than I, but don’t lose sight of the fact that right or wrong on cause, the troops were sent in scandalously underequipped. For that fact alone he should be indicted. Robin Cook and Charles Kennedy look prescient by comparison
So I think the main thing we’ve learned from the seven-year, £10m, three million-word report is that everyone still believes exactly the same version of events as they did before it came out.
I’m waiting for it to come out on vinyl.
It is well worth reading Robin Cook’s resignation speech. It’s a concise and poignant speech echoing Chilcott’s 6 million word report in all its key findings.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm#30317-33_spnew0
My opinion is that the only way Blair can live with himself is to continue to ‘believe’ the Iraq invasion was ‘right thing to do’. He is deluding himself that the evidence on WMD was strong and that the whole world thought the same thing. How he sees the world as a ‘safer place’ now is beyond me. Part of his plea yesterday was if you were in my shoes you would have done the same. Robin Cook saw a lot of the material Blair had at the time, yet he came to a different conclusion.
There’s a 2 minute clip of Tony Benn doing the rounds where he explains to parliament why he couldn’t vote in favour of the Iraq war. At the time he was regarded with affection but he wasn’t really listened to – his eloquence and experience was sidelined as irrelevant by the regional sales managers in the PLP that were more on message with Tony. Go Team!
In that clip, behind him is Jeremy Corbyn, who also voted against the invasion – destroying any political ambition he may have had at that time. Blair’s errors of judgement were far worse and many times more disastrous than Corbyn’s handling of Brexit on any measure you care to use. In comparison, Corbyn just let a bit of wee go during Brexit.
Remember when we thought all of those establishment figures of the past were the creme de la creme, entertaining and loveable – but they turned out to actually be very bad people indeed? Time and time again, years later – we find out that the principled, marginalised nutters were right about things. From Hillsborough and now the Iraq war – the redeeming feature of the way we do things is that we have processes which (eventually) require us to look into this stuff as long as there’s enough people around who care.
So isnt it ridiculous to be a Blair supporter now? I am not sure deserves to carry the entire can for what happened…but he certainly let his vanity take over and did whatever he wanted, regardless. The consequences are almost unfathomably disastrous – despite the clear warnings from just about everyone. He led a Labour Government (a Labour Government) into an illegitimate war .
Unlike just about everyone else at the time, Corbyn’s judgement has now been shown to be sound. He doesn’t engage with the media on purpose – he’s not a fake – he doesn’t trust the establishment. I think we need more of his kind in Parliament. I think he is trying to get something bullshit-free going and I’m all for it.
Corbyn is a broken clock. He stays still and is bound to be right twice a day. He (and others) opposed the interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo for the same reasons; the West is, by definition, wrong.
His opposition to military intervention is still a principled one though – if a principle he didn’t extend to the IRA.
No one can ever be perceived to have put a foot wrong, in ‘moral’ terms, by voting against a war. It’s a no-lose gambit – some other poor fucker gets sent off to do what realpolitik actually requires, ie putting their life on the line, whilst certain beautifully-high-minded pols get to preserve and polish their impeccably-Islington anti-war credentials by throwing their hands in horror at the very THOUGHT of war, whilst at the same time benefitting from the very peace and stability that others’ sacrifices have secured them.
My view, fwiw, is that Blair fell foul of the Wykehamist Fallacy about, uniquely, his ally, rather than about his enemy.
But surely the very thought of war *is* horrifying?
Up.
I think he decided that the Americans were going to war either way, and that the situation was likely to be better with the UK as a moderating influence. I also think he believed he could build a consensus within the UN, which would probably have been the optimal outcome.
If that was the conclusion of the report I would agree, because it sounds so reasonable – but after all this time and deliberation, that is not what is coming out. Blair is not a victim of a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t moral dilemma. We seem to think he simply took a wrong punt, betted on the wrong horse, made a well-meaning but sincere error. It was deliberate, engineered warmongering.
I’m not after his head – I am just very sad about it all.
“It was deliberate, engineered warmongering.”
That’s not what the report concludes.
Not using those words – but that’s the gist of it. Looking for any evidence at all of WMD – not finding any – and then saying there was – in order to legitimise the action taken sounds like an engineered approach to me.
I’m not sure that was the sequence of events, or that the above is a fair summary of the gist of the Chilcot Report (I’d say “serious errors of judgement, but no clear evidence of bad faith” is closer to the mark).
That said, this road is so well-trammeled that it doesn’t feel worth the two of us heading down it, so maybe agree to disagree?
Fair enough Bingo.
Cheers, BC.
So our virtues
Lie in the interpretation of the time:
And power, unto itself most commendable,
Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair
To extol what it hath done.
One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail;
Rights by rights falter, strengths by strengths do fail.
― William Shakespeare, Coriolanus
well yeah but Aufidius prefaces that by saying this:
The tribunes are no soldiers; and their people
Will be as rash in the repeal, as hasty
To expel him thence.
Indeed. And was it not Boyus of Georgus who declared:
War.
War is Stupid.
And People are Stupid.
I think it was.