Thoughts on Tony Blair's Testimony

Tony Blair's testimony before the Iraq War Inquiry has just concluded. Does anyone have any immediate thoughts on anything he said?

 

You mean Tony bLIAR???

 

He has semi-successsfully weasled his way out of serious trouble. What i dont like about this enquiry (and all the others) is the secrecy of some parts - why do they have to be kept secret? - who has what to hide? - and why? - what are their motives to be so secretive?

Tony Blair has said the Iraq war made the world a safer place and he has "no regrets" about removing Saddam Hussein.

The world a safer place? - are you 'avin a larf mate?

 

You have to remember, some things need to be kept secret, which is fine so long as you trust the people deciding what those things are.

 

If TB can talk in such sanctimonious holier-than-thou tones about such a horrific war - which has cost many British soldiers lives, done very little for the local populace of Iraq (at the expense of many, many Iraqi lives), opened the genie to extermism in Iraq (where it was largely contained) and in the UK; what sort of message does that send to the average thug? - who can then self-justify their mindless actions more easily and do as they please without respect for the rule and law of the land.

Mr Blair/Bliar does not set a good example to the British people or present one to people outside of the UK, beyond his preposterously cheesy grin.

That said he is a damm lot better than his successor in terms of statesmanship i.e. he talks a good fight, Gordon does so only occassionally.

 

How can you say he hasn't help the grassroots locals?

I'm sure many shi'a and kurds would disagree strongly!

 

He mentioned at one point that new vaccination plans (at least I think it was vaccination) saves 50K Iraqi children under the age of 5 per year - I've chosen to take that at face value, since I don't think he'd make that up when the eyes of the world are on him.

People who talk about how nothing has gotten better since regime change are, for want of a more subtle expression, talking crap.

 

Thats all fine and well, but I have absolutely no idea as to who these people are, and hence no idea as to what their trustworthyness is like. Sometimes family and friends are entrusted with secrets - so that they understand and manage a dificult situation - but who are these grey opaque civil service manadarins - to whom we trust matters of national interest and the betrayal of a nation?

 

There are some good initiatives under way in Iraq, which will be of benfit to some of Iraq's people, and the totalitarian nature of Sadam Hussein has been removed; at the expense of significant increases in factional violence and social instability.

Whether one views the improvement/detriment/whatever of the Iraqi people, is not the central question of the Chilcot enquiry. The central question(s) hinge around (secretly) the legality and political skullduggery utilised to railroad the war into action, in the face of perfectly valid UN objections e.g. from France - which sets a precedent for doing whatever you want because you are more powefull than others. There was a dodgy Austrian Corporal with a dodgy 'tash who justified a lot of his actions through dubious activities circa 1936-1945.

 

It's bugs me when people tout the 'Blair's a murderer' or 'Blair's a liar' claim. If anything it undermines legitimate arguments against Blair and the Iraq war.

It's certainly possible, and is probably the case, that Blair genuinely did believe Saddam has WMDs, indeed that was the view of most security services around the world. Blair made the valid point that given Saddam's colourful history with WMDs, killing his own people and his illegal weapons stockpiles, it would have required a lot of evidence to doubt the claims made against Saddam - more than we had at that point. Saddam's previous behaviour along with the independent security evidence made it entirely reasonable to believe that he had WMDs.

As for murder, do people really think that sending troops to war (where some will certainly die) constitutes their murder?! Was Churchill a murderer? It's absurd.

As Blair said, in the end is came down to a decision, a judgment, which he had to make and in the end he done what he felt he had to do. It turns out the evidence against Saddam was faulty, but I cannot fault Blair to doing what he honestly felt was right.

Some concerns however...

Blair saying he would have still felt it right to remove Saddam even if he knew he did not have WMDs. It seems Blair is basing this on the fact that Saddam had the intellectual knowledge and resources to built/attain WMDs, and the fact that Saddam's sons (who were as bad as, if not worse than Saddam) were his like successors. Whilst these are all good reasons to be concerned with Iraq and in particular Saddam, and certainly reasons to pursue further long term UN actions, surely knowing that he did not have WMDs reduces the urgency to deal with him? How can a Saddam with WMDs and a Saddam without WMDs entail the same situation, requiring the same actions?

I would have liked the inquiry to have pressed him more over the interview he have the BBC last year where he admitted that he would still have felt it right to remove Saddam even if he did not have WMDs. In the inquiry he said that he never used 'regime change' in that interview yet they did not ask him what the difference was. Whilst it's true he did not use the term 'regime change' he still admitted he would have sought to remove Saddam regardless of WMDs. How is this different?

Blair said that although Britain had not decided to commit to military action, he had told Bush that Britain would stand by America, even if it came to military action. America, it seems, was always committed to military action, which to me looks like Britain was always on a path to war. As one commentator rightly said, by announcing Britain's complete support, Blair removed any bargaining power he may have had.

 

I believe him when he says he did his level best.

A question. Did anyone here really believe that Saddam Hussein wasn't building WMDs? I mean, if there was ever a sure thing, it would be that that maniac was doing something seriously wrong.

 

I agree. Every politician wants to be popular. Blair knew this war would be a risk. Do people really think would have made the decisions he made if he did not really think it was necessary?

 

It's true, but since the inquiries panel didn't start screaming 'Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire' at him, many will consider the questioning to be light. It wasn't.

If the 50,000 children/year claim is true, then the British soldiers who were killed didn't die in vain.

 

Exactly. Saddam's previous behaviour + the evidence from security services made it hard to doubt that Saddam either had WMDs or was building them.

I don't think anyone can pretend that Blair had an easy decision to make. It's easy to play armchair commentator when we do not have all the facts and are not in the decision making position.

I suspect that a lot of the anti-war people were not against removing Saddam per se, but rather the length of the war and how it played out, which was largely due to undermining the resistance, failing to realise the likelihood of a civil war amongst Shia and Sunni's, and dismantling the Iraqi army. I suspect Blairs image and public opinion of the war would have been far better if we were in and out of Iraq within a year or two.

 

Who thinks the war was illegal?

The issue over the legality of the war was whether Resolution 1441 itself authorised military action, or whether another resolution was required.

The argument that it did was that Resolution 678 authorised the use of force against Iraq (i.e. Gulf War 1).

Then the UN passed Resolution 687, which suspended, but did not terminate the authority of the previous resolution, and stated that if Iraq was found to be in "Material Breach" of this resolution, the full weight of the previous resolution (678) would be enforced.

Resolution 1441 was a unanimous decision by the UN Security Counsel that Iraq was in "Material Breach", hence they (Iraq) had broken the previous resolution (687). Legally, because of this "Material Breach", according to Resolution 687, Resolution 678 could be enforced. Resolution 1441 didn’t have an, "enforcement clause," in it per se, but in passing it, the UN set the stage for action under Resolution 678.

 

Despite claims about Hussein and WMD's. Despite their frequency and their persistence; there's no evidence (and thus no proof) to support them. Hussein didn't have, and wasn't fabricating WMD's. Period.


.