If Blair gets flak for Iraq folly, don’t forget Bush!
Following an incredibly tumultuous three weeks in British politics, the nation gets a new Prime Minister today, rather sooner than expected, an event that is likely to trigger the dreaded Brexit negotiations for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union ( EU).
Theresa May’s ascension to power has been preceded not just by the EU referendum and leadership upheavals among both the major parties but also the excoriation of a key predecessor. The release last week of the Chilcot inquiry’s report on Britain’s role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has led to opprobrium being heaped on Tony Blair even by those who enthusiastically backed his gung- ho belligerence 13 years ago.
His administration’s disturbing failings have been meticulously tabulated and annotated in a 2.6million- word account that took seven years to prepare. It’s clearly not a whitewash, as many feared it might turn out to be. Yet many of its understated conclusions bear a remarkable resemblance to what was already clear to large numbers of critics before the US- led assault on Iraq was unleashed in March 2003.
Millions of them took to the streets in cities around the world in the month before the war began. It proved to be an exercise in futility. Common sense was never likely to prevail once the forces of neoimperialism were poised to pounce. And even in retrospect, odd notions abound.
One of John Chilcot’s key findings, for instance, is that Blair opted for war before the alternatives had been exhausted. What exactly are we talking about here, though? The aggression was predicated on the urgent need to divest Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. He didn’t have any: the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed following Iraq’s defeat in the 1991 war, and the nuclear development programme had been suspended.
British and American intelligence agencies’ apparent ignorance on this score obviously does not redound to their credit. One also cannot ignore the fact, though, that these agencies are to a considerable extent predisposed to pleasing their political masters, and they were under a great deal of pressure to come up with the goods even if these did not exist. The political masters, in turn, were inclined to overlook the riders and nuances in the advice they solicited.
One of the supposedly most damning conclusions of the Chilcot report, however, is the powerful implication that Blair signed up to George W. Bush’s war with precious little concern for the causes or consequences. This, too, was obvious back in 2002- 03.
What’s more, the part of the narrative that suggests Blair’s uncritical devotion to the US was largely a product of the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks is questionable. He was intimately wedded to the Clinton administration, and when power changed hands in January 2001 and the British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer, sought advice on how to proceed, he was instructed in no uncertain terms by No 10 Downing Street to ensconce himself as far as possible up the derriere of the new boys in town.
Much has lately been made of Blair’s “I will be with you, whatever” comment in a private memo to Bush eight months before the invasion, but it really should have come as no surprise. Blair’s claim last week that this loyalty pledge did not amount to acquiescence in proceeding to war merely reaffirms his legendary mendaciousness.
In his well- prepared but wholly inadequate response to the Chilcot report, a largely unrepentant Blair also claimed he would, under the same circumstances, do it again and, furthermore, that West Asia was a better place as a consequence of the Iraq war.
It’s unlikely many people in the region would concur. Kadhim alJabbouri certainly doesn’t. Having lost 14 family members to the Baathist regime, the champion weightlifter hated Saddam with a vengeance and on April 9, 2003, attacked the dictator’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square with a sledgehammer. The imagery evolved, with US military assistance, into a key “liberation” moment.
Last week, Kadhim told the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen he regretted his action, because “now we have one thousand Saddams”. Asked what he would do if he encountered Blair, the Iraqi responded: “I would say to him you are a criminal and I’d spit in his face.”
Sarah O’Connor, who lost her brother in the war, offers an even more searing indictment, describing Blair as “the world’s worst terrorist”. That’s an understandable exaggeration, from her point of view. The stupid war, whose possible consequences were quite apparent before it was launched, was essentially an American crime, although Blair was an accessory before the fact.
It is unlikely that Blair will legally be made answerable for his atrocious tendencies. But were he to do so, it would only be fair for him to be arraigned alongside Bush and his formidable battery of heartless neoconservative stablemates.
By arrangement with Dawn