Why Blair backed the Iraq war
James Forsyth 1:40pm
Do read Steve Richards in The Independent today. He makes an interesting case that Tony Blair’s decision to support the war in Iraq was a result of political pragmatism not moralism. He also suggests that Blair might have thought that backing Iraq would position him perfectly to take Britain into the euro: "At some stage, Mr Blair wanted to fight a referendum on the euro. If he stayed close to the US on Iraq, he could never be accused of being anti-American and indiscriminately pro-European.”
What Richards has also reminded us of, is just how crucial the position of the opposition will be if the Iran crisis reaches a point where the United States feels it has to take military action.
Previous
Comments
Verity
March 27th, 2008 3:26pmAlthough I believe that both going into Iraq and supporting the United States was the correct thing to do, Blair, who is without moral compass, went in for reasons of his own advancement on the international scene. Being George Bush's new best friend. The cover of Time and Newsweek. Photo ops in the Rose Garden. TV coverage of his visits to the troops, during which, for some reason, he always adopted the walk of a gunslinger, and an eye to future earnings for himself and his wife in the US.
It paid off. He got a job leading a ME peace effort, rented swank premises in Ryadh and then that sank without trace. Next up, a job with a major investment bank. Bankers at that level are very smart and would have been well aware that Blair is mental thistledown, but his name on the letterhead would be worth whatever they were paying him.
I can also believe,after experiencing the power and appurtenances of the US president, he wanted to "duplicate" it as the pretend (unelected) "president" of Europe, a non-country.
Deep down, he's really very shallow.
Tiberius
March 27th, 2008 3:35pmA plausible set of arguments, but it lacks verisimilitude in my opinion. If, however, Steve is right, it would make Blair the most venal, despicable PM the country has ever had.
David Lindsay
March 27th, 2008 4:39pmYes, the Opposition's role will be crucial, just as it was last time. This time, might it actually bother to fulfil that role? Might it even be so - what's the word? - conservative as to ask what threat even a real Iranian nuclear bomb would be to the United Kingdom? I'm not holding my breath.
Fergus Pickering
March 27th, 2008 6:11pmIf the USA takes action against Iran then what should we do? Nothing at all looks like a good option, wouldn't you say?
Chuck Unsworth
March 27th, 2008 7:21pmAmerica is most unlikely to take serious military action against Iran. It doesn't have the resource or the political will to do so. The only reason why an American President would take such action is to divert public attention away from the growing domestic economic disaster. But then again where's the funding going to come from - China?
dexey
March 27th, 2008 9:25pmAll those soldiers dead so Blair could jockey for position over the euro. God, I hope not!
Verity
March 28th, 2008 12:57amDexey - That Blair went in for reasons of personal aggrandisement (in my opinion) does not invalidate the rightness of going in to Iraq to stop a territorially over-ambitious dictator, and to show that an Islamic democracy could work perfectly well in the ME. Don't forget, on TV, Saudis saw Muslim women voting and their vote being counted equally with those of men. The world continued to turn. This was a big message.
Philip
April 10th, 2008 11:41pm"The world continued to turn. This was a big message."
Wrong. One syllable too many.
"This was a big mess". It is a n needless war, amateurishly planned, justified with falsehoods.
"the rightness of going in to Iraq to stop a territorially over-ambitious dictator" - translates as "he was a bad man, and I didn't like him"
Grow up: the people in iraq deserved a more professional approach. Saddam's departure has brought them none of the joy that was anticipated, because nobody in Western gunmint thought it worth planning for.