Blair’s Iraqi tragedy should have ruled out knighthood

WHAT can we say about Tony Blair that hasn’t already been laboured a thousand times before?

For some, he was the master politician who dragged the Labour Party kicking and screaming into the 21st century. For others, a devious, self-enriching narcissist, who waged war on Iraq based on a false pretext.

He’s in the news this week because he’s been knighted and henceforth will be known hilariously as Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Most Noble Order of the Garter.

The honour, bestowed upon him by Her Majesty the Queen, has ignited a typically fierce debate about his legacy, resulting in gushing congratulations from some and furious condemnation from others.

New Labour, in the beginning, was a substantial political project – this cannot be denied. The problem today is that so many refuse to see the lessons staring them in the face.

They confuse the undeniable effectiveness of New Labour’s slick public relations operation, and Blair’s unparalleled skill as a political performer and communicator, with some farreaching revolutionary event.

Of course, the real tragedy of Sir Anthony was that his wonderful skillset, and so much of the energy, time and thought of his talented team, was deployed in service of an agenda which, unlike many of Blair’s prime ministerial predecessors, has been almost entirely undone.

Inequality has risen. School investment has fallen. The NHS is on its knees. The economy is dysfunctional. The Union is coming apart. Peace in Northern Ireland hangs-in-the-balance.

And a largely constructive relationship with the European Union is in the toilet.

Meanwhile violence is a daily occurrence in Baghdad, and Afghanistan has been retaken by an invigorated Taliban. All that remains of Blair’s tenure, in fact, is the debate about the man’s character.

You couldn’t say the same about Churchill, Atlee, or Thatcher – their legacies are woven into the fabric of British life, for better or worse.

I don’t quite buy the view that Blair deliberately lied about WMDs, or that he is a bloodthirsty or evil man, but it is generally accepted that he overstated the threat posed by Saddam – that’s what paved the way for Britain to invade and occupy Iraq.

Just because his decision to go to war may possibly have been taken in good faith and the negative consequences arising from it may have been unintended should not absolve him of responsibility. Expecting him to be tried for war crimes is obviously unrealistic, but it’s not that unreasonable to expect, at the very least, that he doesn’t receive the highest honour in the land.

His cheerleaders in the Press who insist otherwise are so wrong on this, I pity them.

Despite so long out-of-office, Blair makes occasionally useful contributions to political discourse and still cuts a sharper figure than most frontline politicians today.

But that doesn’t change the facts – the Iraq War remains the biggest Western foreign policy blunder in recent memory, and he was central to the catastrophe.

Sir Tony’s political ascent in the late 90s was borderline messianic. Today, a petition to revoke his knighthood has so far garnered almost a million signatures.

Whatever your view of the man and his legacy, the rise-and-fall of Tony Blair remains one of the great cautionary tales of British political history.