Blair's Book

[Chinahand]

 

... I have no doubt in my mind that he went to war on manufactured evidence just to be in with the gung-ho, kick-ass yanks to be up there on the world stage.

 

I don't really think saying this makes me a Brainless Blair Basher or a bigoted tosser (but you are entitled to your opinion ) ... To now make out he is really a good guy misunderstood by us uneducated fools really does seem faintly ridiculous.

 

I have to say that I think its a bit ironic that you go on about how it is ridiculous for another poster to say we are uneducated fools when your analysis of Blair's motives is that Blair "went to war on manufactured evidence just to be in with the gung-ho, kick-ass yanks to be up there on the world stage."

 

Your pyschological analysis of Blair would not seem to be based on very much at all there BB !

 

I realize I do have a reputation for being anti-religious but I think Blair could very well be a person who exemplifies Steven Weinberg's statement that "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 

My understanding of Blair's personality is that he was a high Tory - Fettes Public school and all that. Just like Cameron he was a rebellious toff with his long hair and reputation for wildness, but then at University he caught God and fell under the influence of Peter Thomson who radically changed his views - Thomson saw Christianity as inherently demanding socialism and with Blair embracing his ideas a person who's background and ideology were distinctly non-Labour suddenly became a driving force for reforming that party.

 

Blair believed he was doing GOOD with his politics and when he became Prime Minister his early wars convinced him that the military could also be used as a force for GOOD - think of Blair walking surrounded by Royal Marines through a Kosovo refugee camp to adulation from all sides, or his learning of the atrocities stopped by the Para's in Sierra Leone.

 

Then came 911. I have no doubt Blair saw that event as a purely Manichean struggle between GOOD and EVIL. And he then swallowed the Bush administrations rhetoric about Saddam - when Blair went off to be briefed by a load of experts about Saddam's Iraq what was the first thing he said/asked them - "the man's uniquely evil, isn't he?"

 

At its most basic level I think Blair thought he was doing GOOD and that he couldn't understand how people could oppose that - he expected the troops to be welcomed with open arms as they liberated the country from EVIL. The experts repeatedly told him that Iraq was not based on such simple logic and that any post war situation would be chaotic and dangerous, but quite simply his religious/paternalist convictions couldn't understand how people couldn't see that he was doing the right thing. This is what he said in 2007:

 

"The notion that removing two appalling dictatorships and replacing them with a UN backed process to democracy, with massive investment in reconstruction available if only the terrorism stopped, could in any justifiable sense "inflame" Muslim opinion when it was perfectly obvious that the Muslims in both countries wanted rid of both regimes and stand to gain enormously, if only they were allowed to, from their removal, is ludicrous. Yet a large part, even of non-Muslim opinion, essentially buys into that view."

 

I am deeply conflicted - I do basically believe that the world will be a safer/better if it stood up against such regimes as the Taliban or Saddam, but I also understand that when regimes have squashed and repressed societies with violence then the way they will react if that regime is toppled will also be unpredictable and violent.

 

Blair is a Neo Con - he thought he could use the military to transform the world for the better. But quite simply the societies he attempted to transform are far far too complex to be transformed by the barrel of a gun.

 

Blair, in his mind, was doing GOOD - and I think many people can sympathize somewhat with his idealism. I do, though I have zero sympathy with the way they brought their plans into being - the planning and follow through of the military conflicts has been abysmal. The end result has been widespread violence, death tolls on a par with the regimes he replaced and massive suffering for general populations - the lot of both Iraqis and Afghanis was better under terror of the previous regimes, sanctions and international isolation. That really tells you alot how the politicians misjudged their plans.

 

Blair will say he aspired to do good. But the fact is he was too ideologically committed to see that what he was planning to do would create much evil, and did not attempt to change the plans to deal with that.

 

He expected Iraqi civil servants to be at their desks welcoming them in with flowers and coffee.

 

That is Blair's biggest crime - and it came about because he was unable to see the conflict as being more complex than a struggle between GOOD and EVIL.

[ballaughbiker]

Just curious, but why after WW2?

Since the war there hasn't been an effective alternative to the 2 party system until now. I'm ignoring the short lived Callaghan-Steele so called pact of the 70s.

But why? You don't necessarily have to like Blair if you are a member of the Party

I didn't put that very well. What I meant was, if I had a UK vote in 1997 I would have voted for him and been a supporter of his policies. That remained the case until he went to war with the 'dodgy dossier' and then tried to spin his way out of blame. I started to really despise that 'trust me I'm Tony' grin that he thought was winning people over. Sorry, have to go and puke thinking about it again.

[ballaughbiker]

I have to say that I think its a bit ironic that you go on about how it is ridiculous for another poster to say we are uneducated fools when your analysis of Blair's motives is that Blair "went to war on manufactured evidence just to be in with the gung-ho, kick-ass yanks to be up there on the world stage."

Explain in more detail please.

 

Was the dodgy dossier true then?

Did the yanks want to kick ass after 911?

Did he want to make a name for himself on the world stage to appear to be the big statesman he wasn't?

 

Of course what I said in one sentence was huge oversimplification, surely anyone could suss that, but does using such précis make me a fool?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Just curious, but why after WW2?

Since the war there hasn't been an effective alternative to the 2 party system until now. I'm ignoring the short lived Callaghan-Steele so called pact of the 70s.

Isee . You just had me confused at the way you had made the statements, in the sense that I thought you were implying that the existence of the particular parties directly reflected public opinion and public political viewpoints.

[Chinahand]

 

[blair] went to war on manufactured evidence... just to be in with the gung-ho, kick-ass yanks to be up there on the world stage.

 

Was the dodgy dossier true then?

My understanding is that the international intelligence community - the Russians, the French, the Yanks and the Brits all believed Saddam had both active and mothballed weapons programs which he aspired to bring to fruition if and when he could. The evidence they had for that was weak and there were disenting voices, but the organizational position was that the intelligence did show a WMD threat from Saddam - that was not only MI6 and the CIA's opinion but the French and Russian position too - though they differed over the extent of the active vrs mothballed programs.

 

That fitted with Bush and Blair's objectives (but not Chiraq's or Putins) and they spun that weak thumbs up from the spooks into the dodgy dossier - they were wrong, but they had the spooks signing up to what they said.

 

I still find the statement that the war used manufactured evidence problematic - it used incorrect evidence, but at the time the organizational view was that it was weak but accurate - certainly it was spun and I wouldn't be nit picking you if you said spun - manufactured is too strong a statement.

 

Did the yanks want to kick ass after 911?

They wanted to kick ass before 911 - regime change was a Clinton policy too.

 

Did he want to make a name for himself on the world stage to appear to be the big statesman he wasn't?

Blair had put himself on the stage well before 911 - that is the point of my, as ever, too long post - Blair became convinced of the "GOODNESS" of military power in the face of US opposition - in Kosovo. The yanks did not want to go in, did not want to commit ground troops (and did not do so, relying on airpower which (relief) worked!) and were unconvinced that it would achieve anything. Blair disagreed and came to the New York (?) summit as the chief hawk. He was on the world stage and loving it, but he wasn't doing it to kiss the US's ass - Clinton and Albright were distinctly unhappy to be put on the back foot by a moralizing war monger who would be putting far fewer of his troops lives at risk if it went tits up.

 

Obviously when Clinton was replaced by Bush and 911 came along both sides agreed on the use of force if necessary - but Blair was NOT doing it be gung ho with Bush - he was doing it due to his own convictions - if Gore had got in and had been less of a warmonger I see Blair taking the Neo Con position to the US's discomfort.

Of course what I said in one sentence was oversimplification, surely anyone could suss that, but does using such précis make me a fool?

I didn't say you were a fool - and I don't think you are, quite the opposite! But I thought your oversimplification missed alot of what motivated Blair - I don't believe it was manufactured intelligence - though it was dodgy and spun (I do think there is a difference) - and it wasn't "just" to be gung ho with the Yanks - as I've tried to explain above.

 

I don't want to escallate name calling - but felt your precis was simply too convenient for today's mood and was innacurate for the time when the decisions were actually taken, and I've tried to explain why in alot of detail!

[pongo]

My understanding is that the international intelligence community - the Russians, the French, the Yanks and the Brits all believed Saddam had both active and mothballed weapons programs which he aspired to bring to fruition if and when he could.

 

Lots of oppressive and potentially belligerent regimes have nasty weapons but that does not mean that the best way of dealing with them is to go to war. Saddam could have been contained pragmatically. He could have even been useful if relations with him had not become so soured.

 

your precis was simply too convenient for today's mood and was innacurate for the time when the decisions were actually taken, and I've tried to explain why in alot of detail!

 

There has not been any significant mood shift. Most sensible people were arguing more or less exactly the same when the invasion of Iraq was being cooked up. Granted some of the relative minority who misunderstood what was happening or were actively pro war have now also come to see that the invasion was an arrogant mistake.

[ballaughbiker]

Fair enough China you make valid points. I was asking for it oversimplifying. I agree that TB started off with good intentions but to tell all and sundry (another oversimplification on its way so don't take each word too literally)that within 45 minutes we could be splattered with chemical weapons or (inference) nukes was wrong. There wasn't the evidence for that before the decision to go to war and post war despite trying very hard to find it, there wasn't any evidence either. Whether you regard the 45 minutes threat as manufactured is a personal judgement.

 

TB knew damn well what the reaction would be and as you say, fitted in perfectly with his agenda. Now we can argue until the cows come home what that agenda was, but let's just leave it that imo, going to war was a huge mistake which has made the world a much more dangerous place. He won't accept that but at least he's never said "god made me do it!" Well I don't think he has.

[P.K.]

I don't really think saying this makes me a Brainless Blair Basher or a bigoted tosser (but you are entitled to your opinion ) and I agree that it won't bring back anyone who was killed. However you would think we could learn from it, but no. We were led, like lambs to the slaughter, into another unwinable conflict and so the grief goes on. To now make out he is really a good guy misunderstood by us uneducated fools really does seem faintly ridiculous. Of course he didn't have to donate a damn thing, but with his income, he's hardly going to miss the money. With his 'previous' for lies and spin, I can only believe it is because of his shame and a desperate attempt to make things look better for himself. Mind you, if he has any shame, that puts his above George dubbleya. Whilst I'm not at all religious, I'd like to hear what TB says in Confession (now he has the need to find god) to justify what he did.

 

I also have a bit of a problem with the thinking that the war was legal just because a bunch of muppets in HOC working on duff gen. voted for it just as I have a bit of a problem with the concept of 'if you join the army you deserve all you get'. Oh well.........

 

First of all re joining up - if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined! Essentially you give your permission to let the government of the day put you in harms way wherever and whenever it chooses. End of.

 

Secondly Blair has ALWAYS had his Christian faith. He turned RC to be in tune with his missus.

 

Thirdly all this talk about dodgy dossiers, 45-minute claims, the pathetic "No WMD found in Iraq" mantra spewed out by the BBB's as though it's everything they need to condemn and all the rest of their bs completely misses the point - exactly as intended.

 

The West needs a stable Middle East to function. Unassailable facts are that Hussein invaded two of his neighbours, used WMD on the Kurds and the Iranians and basically totally destabilised the whole region ie he had to go. Because of the thousands of Iranian casualties caused by Hussein's WMD in his invasion of Iran the Mad Mullahs determined that they would develop their own WMD's to ensure it would never happen again. So because Hussein wasn't removed sooner rather than later we now all face a proliferation nightmare. What's to stop Iran selling on nuclear weapons to Al Queda, the Chechens, N Korea??? The correct answer is "Well, fuck-all actually..."

 

Incidentally it takes about 45 minutes to prepare a binary battlefield weapon - it's in the public domain.

 

I admire the way Blair changed British politics forever. No more Thatcher's not only choosing the interviewer but also the bloody questions ffs! Get up on your hind legs and face Joe Public to justify your existence. Way to go...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The West needs a stable Middle East to function. Unassailable facts are that Hussein invaded two of his neighbours, used WMD on the Kurds and the Iranians and basically totally destabilised the whole region ie he had to go. Because of the thousands of Iranian casualties caused by Hussein's WMD in his invasion of Iran the Mad Mullahs determined that they would develop their own WMD's to ensure it would never happen again. So because Hussein wasn't removed sooner rather than later we now all face a proliferation nightmare. What's to stop Iran selling on nuclear weapons to Al Queda, the Chechens, N Korea??? The correct answer is "Well, fuck-all actually..."

This is all true, but what do you mean by the West here? It is true that the elites and businesses of the West want to see a suitable Middle East in order to have control over it. Same with the rest of the world.

Saddam is the product of what these people and groups in the West wanted decades ago and then changed their minds.

It isn't about learning from mistakes but, ultimately, by trying get the best possible economic outcome for the rich and powerful. The issue of Kurds and Iranians doesn't factor into the matter. They don't matter to the West that you refer to except in the particular case of nuclear weapon that would potentially make the future more uncertain for business and western influence.

[manshimajin]

Which makes it even more disturbing that the political classes in the West used to be their biggest supporters with money and arms and this support ensured their survival. I wonder what planet politicians were living on?

 

Well, they justified it with "My enemy's enemy is my friend" as someone on here recently posted. Recognise it? You should...

I certainly do. But I find it ironic that politicians who pumped so much money and armament into people who believed in torture, arbitrary execution, gassing, stoning women etc...now conveniently forget that they did so. In fairness Blair wasn't in power at the time. I hope he opposed the policy?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Manshimajin - Why don't you just see it as the way things are done? Of course, it does appear ironic, but we know that is how foreign policy and politics are conducted by these people.

[Addie]

Didn't realise the book had been published. Last post is a lie.

 

1. I didn't say that it had been published.

 

2. I don't tell lies. But then you probably "didn't realise" that either.

[manshimajin]

Manshimajin - Why don't you just see it as the way things are done? Of course, it does appear ironic, but we know that is how foreign policy and politics are conducted by these people.

Too true. Too true.

[T.I.N.G.]

Didn't realise the book had been published. Last post is a lie.

 

1. I didn't say that it had been published.

 

2. I don't tell lies. But then you probably "didn't realise" that either.

1 No you didn't.

2 I was wrong, technically inaccurate not a lie.

[Chinahand]

Saddam could have been contained pragmatically. He could have even been useful if relations with him had not become so soured..

 

I have difficulty seeing that - its like saying the Generals in Myanmar could become useful allies of the West ... it is predicated on such a vast change in attitude and policy it is very unlikely to come about. Sadaam took advantage of an alignment of interests with the west during his war with Iran, but even then it was more an attitude of fellow travellers than allies and his genocides and violence made that relationship difficult - he saw himself more of a Nasser getting the west to agree with him than an ally of the west.

your precis was simply too convenient for today's mood and was innacurate for the time when the decisions were actually taken, and I've tried to explain why in alot of detail!

 

There has not been any significant mood shift. Most sensible people were arguing more or less exactly the same when the invasion of Iraq was being cooked up. Granted some of the relative minority who misunderstood what was happening or were actively pro war have now also come to see that the invasion was an arrogant mistake.

I really don't think that is true - the labour party, the conservative party, public opinion formers such as the Economist Magazine etc supported the war. I thnk I am correct in saying the only National Newspapers to actively reject action were the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent - say what you like about the Murdoch Press etc many people did accept the invasion - more than those who rejected it. At the time of the commons debate about the war YouGov reported 50% of the populaton supported the war while 42% opposed - that increased to a peak of 66% when Bagdad fell.

 

Of course I agree many millions of people opposed it, but "the establishment" was basically in favour - which in my mind made the BBC's position so controversial - they took the role of questioning that establishment and making it justify itself. Usually that role is mainly filled by an opposition, but in this case the opposition supported the war and the BBC stepped in to question the policy.

 

The spin doctors hated that and accused the BBC of bias.

 

I don't think it is the case that MOST sensible people rejected the case for war - many accepted it, and now intensely regret it.

 

It was a polarized time with many millions opposing the war and marching in the streets, but also many millions agreed that action needed to be taken.

 

Most of those people have changed their mind - that IS a significant shift in opinion and it is objectively visible in the polls - see this populus poll documenting a fall from 63% supporting the war in April 03 to only 31% in Feb 07 - I can only call that a significant mood shift!