Blair's real crime
Fraser Nelson 3:45pm
As Tony Blair prepares to sit in the dock tomorrow, I suspect he knows he’ll walk it. The focus is on the case for war and how it was spun – which will be his Mastermind specialist subject. Nor will anything new be uncovered. As one of the journalists whose summer holiday was eaten up by the Hutton Inquiry, I have been getting a sense of deja lu throuhout the Chilcot Inquiry – and Hutton was more informative because he exposed emails written at the time. They had more meaning and impact that the hazy recollections we hear now. The real story is one that Chilcot has unearthed almost accidentally: the betrayal of Basra. I write about it in the magazine this week: the evidence we have heard so far has told us plenty about how Blair turned the other way as Basra slid towards hell. In our rush to leave, we badged up militiamen – and handed over the police uniform, weapons, police stations etc. All so Blair could stand in the Commons and say “We are making great progress, we are building up the police and the army etc.” The British also stood by as these “police” started to declare their allegiance to the militia leader with a poster of al-Sadr or whoever on the police station door: there was no pretence of this being an Iraqi national government police. American journalists were appalled at what was a slow handover of power to death squads. Here’s Steven Vincent from the New York Times in July 2005.
'Fearing to appear like colonial occupiers, the British avoid any hint of ideological indoctrination… When I asked British troops if the security sector reform strategy included measures to encourage cadets to identify with the national government rather than their neighbourhood mosque, I received polite shrugs: not our job, mate...'
There were no British journalists based in Basra, partly because of the costs of insuring them and partly because of the danger. Some excellent pieces were commissioned, done now and again – including a Channel Four Dispatches – but the reports always had to compete with far more dramatic news from the American sector and Baghdad. To report on Basra was of the most dangerous assignments in Iraq because it had become a militia-run city. If you read the link to the above quote, it says at the end “Vincent is writing a book on Basra.” Blair is lucky that book never appeared. Four days after writing that piece, “Switched Off in Basra,” Vincent was kidnapped and executed by miltiamen wearing Iraqi police uniform.
The horror stories, when they came out, showed how far things had descended. Some 42 barbers had been executed for un-Islamic shaving of beards. The mutiliated bodies of women were being found in the street, with notes pinned on them accusing them of un-Islamic activities. Saddam’s dictatatorship was secular – and Basra was being Taleban-ised. Blair would say how morally repugnant this was when happening in Afghanistan, but he turned a blind eye when such butchery was introduced to a city that had – even under Saddam – known none of it.
“The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad. There is no Sunni insurgency. There is no Al Qaida base. There is little Shia on Sunni violence. The bulk of the attacks are on the Multi National Forces. It has never presented anything like the challenge of Baghdad. “
Right enough: there was no Sunni v Shi’ite violence. But there was Shi’ite militia violence: the nationalist al-Sadrs versus the more pro-Iranian Mahdi Army with the terrorised people of Basra caught in between. Was this so much better? We have learned in Chilcot that the Britain had been cutting deals with the militas (here, p32). This was justified under some Northern Ireland-style logic: to engage the militias in the political process, get them to drop the bomb and use the ballot box as Sinn Fein had done. That’s one way of dealing with terrorists. Another is to kill their leaders and run them out of town – and that’s what Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, did in Charge of the Knights in March 2008. Basra was re-invaded, by the Iraqi army from Baghdad (the Basra army was choc full of militia men) and a surge helped by American arms. They cleaned up our mess. It was an devastating indictment of Britain’s failure. David Kilcullen, a key adviser to the American command, put it brutally: “In 2006 the British army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq."
Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Basra and dislodged its government without having anything to put in its place. He had a moral duty to protect those people from the terror unleashed by his failure to win the peace. We have heard in Chilcot from one general (here, p4) that he had 200 troops for a city of 1.3 million – was there any, any surprise that (as the general put it) “the militia controlled the city?” Blair spun his way out of that, saying the goal was that (as he put it) “the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis.” The Saddam chapter was written by Iraqis too – so why did we invade? He would have known the atricocities were going on, that Basra had – under Britain’s eye – fallen to the militias. And in the end, Basra was liberated not by Britain but by American arms and Iraqi endeavour. This is Blair’s real crime – and one I fear that he will not be questioned on tomorrow.
Previous
Sally Chatterjee
January 28th, 2010 3:46pm Report this commentIs this news? I've read the foreign press and they were full of coverage of the retreat from Basra, calling it one of the British military's biggest humiliations. The British troops had to hunker back to the airport, sheltering from a ragtag militia. It's not very inspiring news and I felt that the British press probably didn't want to broadcast it but it's no secret.
Liz Brown
January 28th, 2010 3:58pm Report this commentI, for one, will not be watching. I doubt that Bliar will tell us anything that he hasn't already said and will be as weasly and unctous as ever he was. I loathed him before he became Leader of the Liebour party and I loathe him even more now - which I hadn't thought possible
Rachael
January 28th, 2010 4:00pm Report this commentWhat on earth is The Spectator doing employing Andrew Gilligan?
This man's career was rightly exposed for what it is by the Hutton Inquiry.
He will always have a personal axe to grind about Iraq because of what Hutton exposed about him and his journalistic character.
Jon
January 28th, 2010 4:03pm Report this commentI think you'll find Richard North wrote a book about all this some time ago, but the MSM spectacularly failed to publicise it.
Moraymint
January 28th, 2010 4:20pm Report this commentInnocent Iraqis paid the price for what happens when a perennially under-resourced military is sent to war by a nation with ideas above its station, but with an unrestrained egomaniac in the top political job.
That view just trips off the keyboard, but one can only imagine the hell experienced by the good citizens of Basra at the time.
This is what happens when a group of political shysters tears up the usual rules of governance in a (supposed) democracy and lets rip with their self-serving ambitions.
Oh, what a bloody shameful shambles has been the Labour Party in government, eh? We absolutely must consign the lot of them to oblivion at the earliest opportunity.
David Ossitt
January 28th, 2010 4:30pm Report this comment“As Tony Blair prepares to sit in the dock tomorrow, I suspect he knows he’ll walk it.”
Will he though?
Is there not; a small, but ever growing recognition that this man is a criminal, a criminal who must be condemned for his many crimes, if not by the courts of law, at the very least by the general public.
He should be shunned; he should be made a pariah an outcast.
David Ossitt
January 28th, 2010 4:43pm Report this commentRachael
January 28th, 2010 4:00pm
“What on earth is The Spectator doing employing Andrew Gilligan?”
I expect that the first and main reason is that he is being employed; is because of the fact that he is a fine investigative journalist and an honest man.
I also expect that there are those in the profession who would wish help resurrect his career and in doing so help right the wrongs that were heaped on this good man by the evil thugs that worked for the Arch Liar Blair.
But then; these evil men, are of your ilk Rachel, are they not?
Sir Graphus
January 28th, 2010 4:44pm Report this commentRachel, my impression of the Hutton inquiry is that Gilligan hit the nail on the head, but found himself short of protection from his cowardly bosses who fed him to Campbell, and exposed by Hutton's inability to add 2 and 2 together and get 4.
Martin alexander
January 28th, 2010 4:46pm Report this commentRachael....In what way did Hutton expose Andrew Gilligan?...Please enlighten me.
Martin
Dirk Blade
January 28th, 2010 4:47pm Report this commentBravo, Fraser. Sensible perspective instead of the look-at-me-piglet arrestblair.org crowd of moral poseurs. I agree, however, with Sally Chatterjee, not least because I made these points in Apr 08 shortly after I resigned from the army:
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=612
David Lindsay
January 28th, 2010 4:58pm Report this commentOf what are we to witness the beginning tomorrow? Nothing less than the calling to account of the last great monster of The Bloody Century, which began in 1914. He is worse than Bush, having started before 2001.
No, of course he is not as bad as Hitler, although if you do as people usually do and concentrate only on those victims of one particular Nazi crime among many who happened to belong to one category among many, then Blair's half a dozen entirely voluntary wars probably double the six million figure, and certainly come very close to do doing so.
And no, of course he is not as bad as Stalin or Mao. But is that really supposed to be any sort of praise? If the numbers game is the game that we are playing, then he far, far surpasses numerous reviled figures who are now beyond reach: Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein (who would in any case have been dead by now). The remaining likes of Robert Mugabe and even Kim Jong-il barely register next to Blair's global reign of terror. The deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in the Allied carpet-bombing of Hitler's Catholic and Social Democratic opponents, are the tiniest drops in Blair's ocean of blood.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin and Pol Pot were never tried. Bush, Mugabe and Kim almost certainly never will be. Saddam's "trial" was unworthy of the name. For them, and for so many others besides, only one figure stands substitute, and very deservedly so. Blair has it coming, anyway. But there will be no harm in also requiring him to take it for the team. Only then and thus can we consign The Bloody Century to the history books.
Tom
January 28th, 2010 4:59pm Report this commentIt's a fair, if unoriginal, assessment, Fraser. The fact that we sat confined for a year in Basra Airport before the retreat did not make it any more edifying for the troops or the UK.
Naomi Muse
January 28th, 2010 5:34pm Report this commentFraser, there is a world weariness about this piece that reflects the rolling events on Iraq.
Essentially the whole issue is shameful - shameful for us as British citizens, shameful that our mother of parliaments has allowed such dreadful deeds to be done for duplicitous reasons.
None of the mealy mouthed weasel words do anything toward restoring trust in our parliament or parliamentarians. After the information mud slides of the MPs' expenses and gravy trains of other supposed servants of the people, we could all have done with something to give us a lift.
It is also shameful that all the information to do with Dr David Kelly has been locked away for 70 years - almost proof that there was sculduggery, isn't it? And that, brings me to Andrew Gilligan, whose investigative journalism revealed much but the political reaction was to shoot the messenger - shameful again.
David Lindsay
January 28th, 2010 6:04pm Report this comment"He should be shunned; he should be made a pariah an outcast"
He already is. This country now has a living former Prime Minister who cannot visit at least 50 countries for fear of arrest, and whom a Radio Four presenter can all a war criminal on air without the BBC’s receiving a single complaint. For all her faults, that living former Prime Minister is not Margaret Thatcher.
THX1138
January 28th, 2010 6:08pm Report this comment"Blair's real crime" was to get rich. CH's may bleat their ineffectual bitter poison about TB but my beloved free market loves Blair. "Hedgie" & major TORY donor Paul Ruddock just paid Blair £200k for & series speeches and banks like JP Morgan are falling over to sign him up, Random House paid him £5M for his memoirs..
Markets never lie and they understand his true worth.
Oh and ask Gilligan about the blood money he takes from the Mullahs of Iran with his regular appearances on Press TV the propaganda arm of the Iranian government
Holly ......
January 28th, 2010 7:54pm Report this commentMr straight kinda guy Blair now knows that he is a civilian.
He may have his ring of security around him.
He may Feel safe,secure and important.
The day will come though,when he will be called to answer.
He and Saddam will meet to 'fight' again.
Saddam' sons will be there,waiting,angry,
evil,worse than daddy ever was.
Blair need not worry what happens here on earth,it's when he leaves it the REAL fun will start.
Blair will stand at the big gates with that big stupid inane grin, then whooomph....
down he goes.
Eternal damnation....
For all the innocents...May THEY rest in peace.
Beer Moth
January 28th, 2010 8:17pm Report this commentTHX 1138
Markets never lie? Maybe just a little fib here and there, eh?
TGF UKIP
January 28th, 2010 9:34pm Report this commentQuite a diatribe, Fraser, but I note no attempt to examine the pressures Blair was under to minimize casualties, to reduce force numbers and hand over Basra responsibility to the Iraquis with the result that British garrison was left undermanned and crippled in its mandate.
Perhaps, that omission might have something to do with the fact that the pressure came not just from the usual suspects - the lefties in his cabinet, on his backbenches and the LibDems - but also from your mates the Tory Front Bench who, quite disgracefully, were relentless in their opportunistic calls for troop withdrawals.
To draw attention to such would not really suit the political narrative of the The Spectator, would it though, Fraser?
It does, though, help to put into perspective just why the trio of shits who control the Tory Party would be so happy to plunder the Defence budget for the benefit of the bottomless pit.
paul holdstock
January 28th, 2010 11:46pm Report this commentwhilst i fully understand that much of international law is both opaque, and unenforcable, so that the chances of Blair ever being dragged before a court, are infinitessimaly small.
perhaps the remedy lies closer to home?
since when exactly, did lying your country into a war not constitute treason?
if it does not, what sort of betrayal do you have to commit before treason is committed?
Skipper of Sydney
January 29th, 2010 4:59am Report this commentDear Martin Alexander (amongst others)
I think your arguments are neatly punctured by Gerard Henderson's comments on evidence given at the Hutton Inquiry:
(see, inter alia, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/22/1064082927208.html)
" Gilligan gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry on August 12 and on September 18. On the latter occasion, where he was cross-examined, Gilligan put in a shocker. The full flavour of the exchange is best judged from reading the transcript on the Hutton inquiry website, http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk.
In summary, Gilligan openly acknowledged, or reluctantly conceded, that he had made a "slip of the tongue" in his initial broadcast - he had not intended to accuse the Blair Government of dishonesty. Gilligan also said he had falsely described Kelly as a member of the intelligence service - it was another "slip of the tongue". He failed, however, to provide any plausible excuse for not correcting such significant errors.
There was more, much more. Gilligan conceded that he was "quite wrong" to have dobbed in his source (Kelly) to some MPs on the British Foreign Affairs Committee. He was "under an enormous amount of pressure at the time", you see. And, yes, it was a "mistake", on "two occasions", to "ascribe" statements to Kelly when in fact both were "actually a conclusion" reached by Gilligan himself. Just a mistake. There were also numerous occasions when Gilligan went into the "cannot remember" mode. Moreover, he lost a crucial written record of his meeting with Kelly; it simply disappeared from his "laptop bag".".
Has this enlightened you? Henderson also links to the actual evidence given. If you aren't a lawyer, I can explain it to you if you like!
Beer Moth
January 29th, 2010 6:49am Report this commentTGF UKIP
Well said. So many here are falling for the laziest arguments.
PAUL GILBOY
January 29th, 2010 10:37am Report this commentHe not only had a moral duty Frazor he had a ‘legal duty of care’ to the people found in the assigned British sector.
This ‘duty of care’ is found in British law and also international law, it beholds those responsible to uphold law and order, and maintain the integrity of the property rights of the occupied peoples. By their own admission, Blair and his cohorts, had no plan in situ when they went in, failed to draft a plan when they were there and, turned the organs of law and order over to murderers and terrorists.
Its no good throwing his hands up now and pleading the people of Basra wanted these murderers and terrorists to participate in Government because the fallacy of that argument is found in the fact that once the national government regained control, these death squads were driven out, to the applause of the local people.
TGF UKIP
January 29th, 2010 6:55pm Report this commentThanks Beer Moth, the blunt truth is that Blair is being used as an aunt sally for the entire British political and media establishments to hide behind. Not that you'll get any of the giants of journalism owning up to that.
THE ESSEX BOYS
January 29th, 2010 9:33pm Report this commentWe believe that many TV commentators have done us an diservice by suggesting that the public has no appetite for 'yet another' enquiry. This is to misjudge both the mood and the limited scope of previous enquiries. Further important information is being revealed all the time and this may NOT be the final chapter once a new government takes stock and possibly adds to the Enquiry's reach and ability to follow-through.
The key question - Why was Mr Blair so keen to go to war? - is intriguing.
'Sticking with our major ally'...'The right thing to do'...and vague implications that a higher power was guiding him just do not wash. Why THEN, with Blix in situ as a result of the massing of troops. Those troops could have waited longer while Blix continued and further post-conflict planning was undertaken in case necessary.
It is perfectly clear now - as we have stated continuously since 2003 - that blind support of the USA in general and President Bush in particular has benefited Mr Blair in his personal life and we see no reason why this possibility should not be explored. Human nature is human nature.
We also believe that the President and close family associates in Saudi Arabia - well explained in the film 'Fahrenheit 911' - have benefited enormously from the much higher price platform for crude oil in the world market since the invasion. These figures and earnings are a matter of fact.
We believe that this far-reaching Enquiry has the scope to explore these possible motives for decisions that so many of us at the time, and ever since, have found inexplicable. We see no reason why the laws of defamation should impede such natural questions that we believe are in the minds of so many.
There is a great sense of injustice in this country when we see the material benefits that the main exponent, Mr Blair, and former political colleagues now in his employ have enjoyed while our military and their families have paid such a heavy price for little personal reward.
It is important for the fabric of society that this injustice is not ignored but is understood and probed in depth.
Mike Clark
January 31st, 2010 4:16am Report this commentLots of ‘Blair’s real crime’ articles around this week.
Anyhow, it’s always been incredible to me that the media laud General Dannatt, who in effect bounced Tony Blair into drawing down the troops by announcing they were “part of the problem” and doing “more harm than good”. Given that the Americans came in and swept away the militias, General Dannatt was proven totally wrong and should be a deeply unpopular General who lost us a war. But instead he’s a celebrity who the Tories want to sign up as their defence spokesman.
Jonathon Powell stated during his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, rather matter-of-factly, how it was impossible to sustain the effort after Dannatt had said this – it ruined the army’s morale.
At the time the media were campaigning for the troops to come home – every bodybag was blamed personally on Tony Blair – and Gordon Brown refused to give anymore money, so it was an impossible situation for Blair. I don’t blame him for this. General Dannat, the media and the public, and unfortunately Gordon Brown, are to blame. They did not want to win.
King Prawn
January 31st, 2010 11:59am Report this commentFraser, this article just shows how many people in the Tory Party and supporters like yourself still fear Blair.
As far as I am concerned his biggest mistake was not sacking Gordon Brown because Brown was just a cancer inside that cabinet destroying anything that Blair did.
When you wrote this article, you knew that Brown was putting pressure on Blair to reduce combat operations by squeezing the funds that our Army in Iraq needed. Thanks to Brown, a straight jacket was put around operations in Iraq.
The behaviour of Clare Short during the early post invasion days was a disgrace. After agreeing to stay on at her department at the start of the war, thereafter she behaved like a petulant child before eventually flouncing out of cabinet. No wonder post war planning in Iraq was so weak.
As someone stated above, Sir Richard Dannatt's behaviour did nothing for the morale of his men fighting in Iraq. It just highlights the bad judgement of David Cameron in putting Dannatt in his team.
Michael Howard's behaviour was an absolute disgrace. His suggestion that Blair should pick a fight with Bush over what was going on in Iraq was ridiclous. You do not reveal your arguments with your allies to your enemies.
The way the left demonised Thatcher is similar to what the right is doing with Blair. It is done out of fear that he will return.
Richard Morris
January 31st, 2010 11:54pm Report this comment@Mike Clark. Spot on regarding Dannatt. And his article today in the Sunday Telegraph is a damning indictment of his motivation. Makes you wonder how many other bien pensant generals were applying passive (and not so passive) resistance while constraining their men to indecisive operations in Basra and Al Amara. Bloody shameful. I'm just glad to see that at least one other person rumbled him. I thought I was alone.
Back to top