Subject says it all.
Thanks,
Rob
I think he genuinely believed it was the right thing to do, I’ve heard him say in interviews after the fact that he was especially concerned with the humanitarian aspects of it. I get the impression he’s quite simply a member of the “nation building” school of thought and felt that toppling Saddam and rebuilding Iraq in the image of the West was the “right thing.” Obviously the diplomatic ties with the U.S. were important–but it would not have been the first time the British didn’t aid us in an overseas expedition (Vietnam comes to mind), and we’ve left them hanging before too (Falklands, Suez.)
My understanding is that he truly wanted Saddam Hussein gone, but really didn’t want to go in without UN support. However, he had to commit to going in before Bush would even talk to the UN.
This has been baffling to me for a long time. Blair and Bush seem to have had personal and political styles that were almost totally opposite to one another. On most issues Blair seemed to me to be smart and open-minded, but to be rather duplicitous, to lack much in the way of political vision or ideals (apart from a sort of vague humanitarianism), and to be much too ready to shape his policies to serve his own political interest. Bush, on the other hand, was stupid and closed minded, but (at least after 9/11) very much a man of strong convictions and a clear direction (albeit the wrong one!). Furthermore, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, Bush had managed to get American public opinion, for the most part in favor of the war, while British public opinion was always strongly against it. Bush might well have gone ahead even without public support, but Blair was the sort of politician who was, normally, always looking over his shoulder at the public opinion polls and adjusting his policies accordingly. Not this time though. His personal reputation, and his party’s chances of winning another election, have taken an enormous hit because of it.
I do think, however, that Blair and his people may really have bought into the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction® story, even more than Bush and his people ever did. For the Bushies the WMDs seem to have been an excuse rather than their real reason for wanting to invade Iraq. Although they probably believed the WMD story, it was clearly never their main motivation. They wanted to invade anyway, but peddled the WMD issue to the public and to allies in order to drum up support. (I remember reading about Wolfowitz pushing, within the administration, for invasion of Iraq long before Bush was talking about it publically. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, this was even before 9/11.) Of course, the British government were shown the U.S. intelligence reports on this, and perhaps Blair and his people simply could not believe that the American intelligence services could have been so incompetent (or, perhaps more to the point, so cravenly subservient to political pressure and wishful thinking) as to have got things so badly wrong. Blair, then, may have truly been convinced that Iraq had, or would soon have, WMDs, and have been truly scared about it.
In some ways, the whole issue of Iraqi “superweapons” may have had more resonance in Britain, and perhaps especially amongst Labour Party politicians because of the long running “Iraqi supergun” scandal that had a lot of play in the British media in the run up to, and aftermath of, the first Gulf War. I am a bit hazy on the details myself because, although I am British, I was living in the United States for most of the time this was going on, but I think the underlying issue was that a British company, with some ties to the (then) Conservative government, was accused of illegally supplying parts to Iraq that were said to destined to be used to build an enormous artillery weapon for Saddam Hussein. (It was designed to be able to lob shells as far as Israel, I think.) At first many people found the whole idea of a “supergun” unbelievable, and it was argued that the materials were being exported for some harmless civilian use (which would not have been illegal). However, it all turned out to be true (the gun was never built, but Saddam really was trying to build one before he lost the first Gulf war), and the surrounding scandal, which dragged on for ages, was used by Labour politicians to harry the Conservative government, and contributed (in a minor way) to the Conservatives losing the 1997 election and Tony Blair coming to power.
Of course, the supergun story strongly echoes the later story, put about by the Bush Administration, that the Iraqis were buying aluminum tubes in order to refine uranium and build a nuclear bomb. That turned out not to be true: The tubes do seem to have been intended for some innocent civilian use. However, the British, and perhaps especially the top ranks of the Labour Party, might well have been more inclined than Americans or other Europeans to believe the story because of having followed the supergun story so closely for so long.
Wow, njtt, thanks for that excellent post! I’ve wondered about this a lot, myself, but I never knew about the “Iraqi supergun” scandal. It actually seems to explain a lot.
For historical purposes (as very little was reported) we can not ignore the evidence from the Downing Street Memos:
The annotated page from that site is one of the most interesting:
downingstreetmemo.com (notes in brackets)
Later, Blair decided to go for the invasion, regardless of the doubts (that by that time had appeared as the UN inspectors could not match the “intelligence” reports with actual weapons of mass destruction that he was confident the inspectors would find.)
Tony Blair has apologized for intelligence errors over Iraq, but I think his mind was made up early like Bush, for Blair it was more important to continue to support the US. Regardless of what the evidence said just before the invasion.
Did Blair or other members of his government have strong ties to oil companies or defense contractors the way the US did? (Point being that instability in the region pushed up the price of oil and gave a lot of business to the military-industrial complex.)
IIRC, Blair’s speech in Parliament announcing his Iraq policy also included a long passage about getting the Bush administration to change its policy and engage actively in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Which, of course, The Bush Administration never really did until late 2007.
I saw a TV interview he did and he genuinely seemed to think he was doing the right thing and that the UK had a duty to improve that part of the world and to support America in doing it.
I think Bush, Blair and Aznar were all sincere but just totally delusional. Aznar certainly was delusional in the last few years of his governing. It had all gone to his head and he was completely out of touch with the real world. Like Bush. I am not so sure Blair was so far out of touch. I think they were also caught in this dream that it would be an easy win and the UK and Spain would share the spoils and fame and fortune as co-victors. I remember much talk at the time about “lucrative reconstruction projects” which would be denied to France and Germany and awarded to supportive countries. The despoiling of Iraq.
Aznar later admitted there were no “weapons of mass destruction” but never really admitted his mistake, only saying that “everybody thought so at the time” which is a lie and which shows how out of touch he still is. I mean millions and millions demonstrated around the world, France and Germany opposed the war on the grounds that the case for war was not proven and this asshole thinks we have forgotten all that and that “everybody thought so”.
Clip of Aznar categorically stating in February 2003 that Iraq had WMD and that “he (Aznar) was telling the truth”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNbBrQVqqY
Neither Bush nor Blair seem anchored in very deep thought about history (let’s put aside the debate about who’s “smart” or “dumb” – Blair joined a Labour Party that at the time self-identified expicitly as “socialist,.” and acceptance of socialist doctrine implies or corellates with the belief that no matter how people have always behaved in the past, the enlighted new generation has a system that will get it right, will change human nature – a historically bold, if not to say stupid, notion), or about the risks of trying things “just to see if it might work out.” This is less surprising for Blair, as part of his schtick was New Labour, shaking up the stodgy old ways (in favor of “Cool Britannia”), etc. He also had a bit of an instinct/motive to get kind of mavericky on what you would think would be traditional Labour policies, and the “Labour Brand” had arguably been hurt in the '70s by association of the left and the hippie dippie/CND pacifist movement. Couldn’t hurt his macho street cred to support an invasion that would likely be a cakewalk (or so they were being told).
In other news, so a porn-star 'stache is still politically viable in Spain?
I don’t have a proof nor cite but at the time he was in a shaky situation anyway and he was looking for post-PM job security. His current post and salary would explain a lot. But, of course, that’s a speculation.
However, it reminds me of intervention by then French President Mitterrand who - hours before NATO ultimatum to Serb forces around city of Sarajevo – landed on Sarajevo airport in June 1992 and paid a visit to the city. And it was funny, all the media reported that he was doing this stunt for the benefit of occupied city citizens, this “old brave man” or whatnot – however, he was saving Serb forces that were shelling the city for years from US led NATO intervention. To me it was one of the most horrific stories of that war –the surviving victims were applauding this “old man” as he was walking around the half destroyed city not realizing all he was doing is giving them more time to die.
Ambassador Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.
Rufus T. Firefly: It’s too late. I’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield.
- From the fun and now sadly prophetic Duck Soup (1933)
Because George said they could have rabbits and live offa the fat of the land!
I think the opposite is true and all three of them thought they were making history which would be proven later to be brilliant in its foresight and execution. I think Bush was the one who really believed this the most and the other two ended up believing it as well.
You make a good point that they thought they were making history – the problem is they were looking solely forward as though they wrote on a blank slate, rather than bothering to ask “in history, has someone tried to make history in this way, and what does history tell us about how viable that plan was?”
Anyone who says – my plan will make things different, it’s not relevant to consider past plans, this time, it can’t fail, the world and human nature will be fundamentally different forever – whether it be communist, fascist, religious visionary, or neocon – should set off every alarm bell you have.
I am still puzzled.Blair obviously thought it would be a piece of cake-2 week war followed by glory (as Achmed Chalbi assumed control). Nobody ever thought: gee, what if this turns into a 8 year occupation, with thousands of soldiers dying?
And thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in bombings? Nope, never had a thought that that might happen!
Leaders who make history are visionaires who energize a people into doing big things. Sometimes, like Winston Churchill, they will be remembered as great leaders who lead their people to do great things, others, like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao or many other small-time dictators they are just fools who thought they were making history for the better. There are many , many more in this last category and the trio of the Azores obviously belong there. Fools with a vision which turned out to be a nightmare.
I think some of the appeal of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam for Blair was the Big Idea of creating a stable friendly democracy in the Islamic Middle East. I believed this big idea also appeal to Bush and others in his adminstration which was outlined by Paul Wolfowitz. To me this it not a bad idea. Create a stable friendly democracy as a wedge against Iran and Syria and at the same time use it as example to Arab “allies” (Saudis, Kuwatis, etc) to move toward a western style democracy in a post 9/11 world. The problem with big ideas like this is not paying attention to the details especially on what happpens after.
Now I don’t think it mattered to Dick Cheney. I believe that man’s heart is as black as soot and he used the whole situation for personal gain.
I don’t think anyone (in the West anyway) disputes that it would have very nice if Iraq could have been easily and quickly turned into a modern, peaceful, U.S. or Western European style democracy friendly to the U.S. and Europe. The question is how anyone who gave the idea more than five minutes real thought, and who was not totally ignorant of history and human nature, could have thought that could possibly happen.
I think we have some pretty good ideas of how the Bush administration, given the type of people they were, and their political ideology, and the nature of their political constituency, could have come to delude itself this way. However, I have yet to hear a plausible account of how the Blair administration could have come to believe it. They were in very different domestic political circumstances, and Blair and his ministers came from a background of, and drew their support from, people with very different political attitudes and ideals. (Although nearly all were very far from ever being socialists in the sense that Huerta88 apparently despises.)
I offered the story of the supergun scandal higher up the thread as, perhaps, one part of the puzzle, but I don’t mean to suggest that that could be the whole story. It may also be true that Blair genuinely believed that he would be getting the leverage to push America into more rational policy on Israel (though that implies he made a massive misjudgement not only of Bush, but of the whole American political scene), but none of this yet seems to me to add up to reason enough.
This is nonsense. When he decided to go along with the Iraq invasion Blair was in a very strong political position at home. The decision to go into Iraq, even before it all went so obviously wrong, greatly weakened him politically. Nevertheless, he was still in a strong enough situation to remain as prime minister for many more years, and to win the next general election quite comfortably (though he would probably have won it even more comfortably if it had not been for Iraq). If he had really wanted, he could probably still have been prime minister even now (though his chances of winning the next election might have been even poorer than Brown’s are now). His present position is fairly standard stuff for former successful British political leaders. I do not see anything any more corrupt than normal about it.