Tony Blair’s backing for the Iraq war will be honoured by history in the same way as Churchill’s decision to fight Hitler, Iraq’s former prime minister has told The Sunday Telegraph.
‘History will see Blair as Churchillian’ | International News | News | Telegraph.
Really? The two are not comparable. Despite his and Bush’s protestations, in 2003 Saddam Hussein was a spent force more dangerous to his immediate neighbours than the West. Although intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was mixed at best, a balance of probabilities suggested that few, if any, were still available to the regime. It is indeed true that Hussein was playing games during the inspections – why expect anything else? True compliance would have involved loss of face. That nothing was subsequently found came as no surprise whatsoever.
Perhaps most unforgivable are Blair’s words earlier this week claiming that the current situation was not foreseeable and not his responsibility. Really? I foresaw it when war was being talked up in late 2002 – it was blindingly obvious to anyone with an inking of the history of the region that removing Saddam and creating a power vacuum would lead to just such a quagmire. The sectarian divides and hatreds were there to see, why did he not see them? The decision to impose democracy on a region not yet ready for it is another example of arrogance I have come to accept from this man – and from Bush. The decision to go to war should have gone alongside a plan for the current situation – given that it was entirely foreseeable. That lack of contingency planning was the height of incompetence and gross negligence.
I disapproved of the war in the first instance; partly for this reason; that it had “Vietnam” writ large in pink flashing neon all over it; that the justification put forward appeared to be flimsy and trumped up and that it is not necessary to use a full scale assault to remove a dictator from power. Looking back at three years of bloodshed and the wreckage that is now Iraq, I disapprove of it still. No, I don’t believe that Bush and Blair are war criminals. Arrogant, stupid, incompetent, negligent and conceited, yes; but criminals, no.
To compare the narcissistic and deluded Blair with Churchill is like comparing Enid Blyton William McGonagall (see comments). with William Shakespeare…
A bit harsh on Enid Blyton, I feel. A better choice might be William McGonagall. He and Blair share the same delusions about the extent of their abilities and the value of their work.
“The most startling incident in my life was the time I discovered myself to be a prime minister, which was in the year 1997.”
True – I was thinking of the gap between Noddy and Hamlet. 😉
“A person is determined to be a war criminal if found guilty of violating international laws and conventions that make up the law of war.”
That makes Bush and Blair war criminals in my opinion.
Under article 3 of the Geneva Convention, any person can be tried as a war criminal for violating laws which cause:-
“Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity”
I think the first 3 days of the very public bombing of Baghdad bear this first point out.
“Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings”
Same as first point.
“Plunder of public or private property”
As above.
They would argue, of course, “military necessity”. A court would have to decide whether that was true or not. Plunder? Hmm… I think that’s stretching it.
Yep, plundering is stretching it I agree
The fact remains though it doesn’t matter how much they argue ‘military necessity’ there was none, Saddam and his country were of no threat to us. It was an illegal war, they did not follow international law and therefore, they are war criminals.
I think another question has to be asked:-
If Bush and Blair weren’t leaders of the free world (ha! that’s a laugh) and say were the President and Prime Minister of say North Korea and Iran as an example, would they be perceived differently by both the world and the law courts?
I think they would, so there’s no difference in what they’ve done. They need to be made accountable, the fact is they won’t be.
Well said Longrider, I agree entirely. Saddam wasn’t even a threat to his neighbours anymore, thanks in part to the fact that Bush and Blair have armed the god awful Saudis to the teeth with the best weaponary we have. The war was ridiculous and the plan to democratise the arab world by mitiary intervention stinks of the sort of lunatic blind idealism embraced by many communists back in the day.
The only thing approaching an Islamic democracy is Turkey – that’s the best they can hope for. Given the fact that Iraq was drawn on a map in an cartographic exercise with nil regard for the ethnic groups contained within its borders, even this is an impossible dream. Utter madness it really was. Nothing annoyed me more than the utterly outraged Alastair Campbell fuming about David Kelly’s allegations that the case for war was “sexed up”. Here we have a situation where 10’s of thousands of people have died and continue to die. A dossier prepared for the government claimed, with absolute and incredible inaccuracy, that Saddam had weapons he could ready and threaten the UK with in 45 minutes. What is the governments response to this ? Do they agree that someone fucked up royally and the dossier is a complete load of shite and an insult to the public and we went into a hugely destructive war on a false mandate ? No – better sort that kelly man out, I mean how dare he suggest that the government would mislead the public over something so important.