Tony Blair’s announcement of his intention to depart Number Ten at the end of June was poignant, emotional, and, of course, carefully scripted. Surrounded by a sea of friendly faces in his own parliamentary constituency, he showed contrition over mistakes made, displayed an unusual amount of modesty concerning his past performance and had moms, dads and gray-haired grannies dabbing their tear-filled eyes.
The consummate actor he is, he put on an excellent show. If one was able to dismiss the tortured, limbless and desecrated bodies strewn over Iraq — a direct result of dodgy dossiers and intelligence molded to fit an agenda — it might have rung true. This was not the legacy Blair had wanted, so where did he go wrong?
The question is was former Mr. Nice Guy Tony Blair seduced by power into believing he had the right to hold sway over life and death for the greater good of his nation or was he seduced by American neoconservatives?
In other words, did Blair start out with good and honorable intentions or was he hand in glove with a dubious will-to-power cabal from day one?
I’ve grappled with this one for a very long time. It’s hard to fathom whether Blair should go down in history as a sad, misguided figure betrayed by his friends across the pond or a devious individual dedicated to pulling the wool over his own people’s eyes and putting their interests subservient to the White House.
Only Blair and his confidantes can tell us for sure and we may never know the truth. Yet I’m inclined to believe that Blair is guiltier of being naive and placing trust in the wrong hands rather than someone who ruthlessly set out on a path of deceit to further his own ends.
For, in truth, what did Blair or Britain get out of Iraq?
Blair’s reputation and international standing was destroyed. He lost the public’s respect and became an embarrassment to his own party. He’s been denigrated and ridiculed by the media and is despised by many in Britain and abroad for his cozying up to George W. Bush. He didn’t even walk away with a major reconstruction contract, while Bush’s promises to work toward a Palestinian state came to naught.
In some people’s eyes he’s a war criminal who should be prosecuted. His greatest achievement of bringing peace and a government of national unity to Northern Ireland has become a footnote, overshadowed by the horrors of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Blair’s reluctance to condemn what should have been loudly condemned.
Indeed, it was his failure to call for an immediate cease-fire during the Israel-Lebanon war last summer that put him under the most pressure to depart sooner rather than later.
“Yo Blair” could no longer be captain of a Cabinet concerned that they, too, would be irrevocably tainted by their boss’s misjudgments and mistakes.
But before we rush to judgment, we must put Blair’ actions in context.
Sept. 11, 2001 changed the world. It shouldn’t have but most would accept that it did. Blair had been a staunch ally and friend of Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton and so it was only natural he would rush to George Bush’s side during his hour of greatest need. Most other world leader did exactly the same, in fact.
Who would ever have thought the Pakistani President Gen. Musharraf would leap aboard the ensuing “war on terror” which such enthusiasm his own popularity has been eroded? Who could have imagined that Russia’s President Putin would have given his blessing to American bases being erected throughout its own sphere of influence including the Caspian? Who could have previously envisioned Yasser Arafat giving his own blood for Americans?
It wasn’t until reports of men wearing hoods and orange jumpsuits, chained and shackled began to surface that people began to question America’s response to the attacks upon it, while “shock and awe” not only shocked Iraqis but also the rest of the world.
By then, however, Blair was embroiled. He couldn’t have extricated himself or his country without seriously damaging the historic trans-Atlantic relationship that allows Britain to punch above its weight internationally. Moreover, Britain is reliant upon the US for its own defense. A column by Johann Hari in the Independent titled “Blair’s Legacy Lies in the Baghdad Morgue” (May 14) threw further light on the subject. Hari is less than flattering about Blair, whom he accuses of becoming selectively blind on US behavior, using “weasel words” of denial when confronted with America’s use of chemical weapons in Iraq and “the anomaly” Guantanamo.
However, Hari also points out that until 2005 Blair had never heard of the Project for a New American Century, which is a blueprint for US dominance of the planet’s land, seas, skies and even space. Blair knew “surprisingly little about American power and its purposes,” and had scant knowledge of American history, says Hari.
If that’s true, should Blair be forgiven his transgressions? Was he well-intentioned good guy, whose only fault was to allow himself to be led down a sinister path by people he thought of as friends?
In the final analysis, I don’t think so. He may have been ignorant of Washington’s motives early on in the game but there must have come a point when he knew the score. When that moment came a person of true honor, dignity and decency would have stood up to be counted at whatever cost to his own ambitions.
Instead Blair did what most politicians do. Ride the stormy seas in the hope of being saved by unexpected dry land. Unfortunately for Blair the storm still rages. For him, it may never truly die.
One thing is sure. Once out of office he will have plenty of time to reflect on his actions and come to term with the results away from the limelight. Unless, by some miracle, Iraq manages to right itself Blair will always carry that tragic burden. He is not a man to be envied.
