This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/syria-tony-blair-iraq-hornets-nest
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| On Syria, Tony Blair has prodded the hornets' nest again | On Syria, Tony Blair has prodded the hornets' nest again |
| (12 days later) | |
| Tony Blair's effortless ability to enrage his many critics, especially on the left, was evident again when he popped up on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to insist that MPs' rejection of military action against Syria was not directly linked to the legacy of mistrust he bequeathed over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. | Tony Blair's effortless ability to enrage his many critics, especially on the left, was evident again when he popped up on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to insist that MPs' rejection of military action against Syria was not directly linked to the legacy of mistrust he bequeathed over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. |
| Why not? Because there was no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week and little doubt that the Assad regime perpetrated the attack, a challenge to the international order which it would be dangerous to ignore, the former British prime minister replied with his customary fluency and confidence. | Why not? Because there was no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week and little doubt that the Assad regime perpetrated the attack, a challenge to the international order which it would be dangerous to ignore, the former British prime minister replied with his customary fluency and confidence. |
| Will his latest intervention further damage Ed Miliband or help him by reminding Labour loyalists that Ed is not Tony? | Will his latest intervention further damage Ed Miliband or help him by reminding Labour loyalists that Ed is not Tony? |
| What Blair meant was that, since chemical weapons have definitely been used against civilians in Syria, the west's hesitation is not about trust or mistrust of governments, but about the consequences of military intervention. "If we take action in Syria will we not make the situation better?", or worse, as happened in Iraq and (to a lesser degree?) Afghanistan, Blair said. | What Blair meant was that, since chemical weapons have definitely been used against civilians in Syria, the west's hesitation is not about trust or mistrust of governments, but about the consequences of military intervention. "If we take action in Syria will we not make the situation better?", or worse, as happened in Iraq and (to a lesser degree?) Afghanistan, Blair said. |
| This was the "key point", the difference between Iraq and Kosovo. Had the rapid defeat of Saddam Hussein's armed forces been followed by peace, "we'd not have to be discussing this here today". | This was the "key point", the difference between Iraq and Kosovo. Had the rapid defeat of Saddam Hussein's armed forces been followed by peace, "we'd not have to be discussing this here today". |
| Blair failed to add that the military and political ineptitude of the US and – in four southern provinces – British occupation of Iraq gave the insurgents, domestic and foreign, fertile ground on which to operate. | Blair failed to add that the military and political ineptitude of the US and – in four southern provinces – British occupation of Iraq gave the insurgents, domestic and foreign, fertile ground on which to operate. |
| But his critics also have a blind spot, too keen to play down the savagely sectarian nature of the Sunni revolt in defence of their minority's lost privileges, fuelled by disdain for the Shia. In riots, car bombs and assassinations, that ancient faultline – long pre-dating European colonialism, the Ottoman empire or even the Crusades – reverberates across the region in its current upheavals of modernisation. | But his critics also have a blind spot, too keen to play down the savagely sectarian nature of the Sunni revolt in defence of their minority's lost privileges, fuelled by disdain for the Shia. In riots, car bombs and assassinations, that ancient faultline – long pre-dating European colonialism, the Ottoman empire or even the Crusades – reverberates across the region in its current upheavals of modernisation. |
| But Blair, a hawk throughout the Syrian crisis, has prodded the hornets' nest again. Outraged listeners reached for their blogs and Twitter accounts while the interviewer John Kampfner (whose Radio 4 programme, What Syria Means for Britain, on 9 September at 8pm, includes the interview) audibly gulped. "Are you seriously saying" that the failure to find the much-vaunted Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after Saddam was toppled had no impact on the Syria vote in the Commons, he asked. | But Blair, a hawk throughout the Syrian crisis, has prodded the hornets' nest again. Outraged listeners reached for their blogs and Twitter accounts while the interviewer John Kampfner (whose Radio 4 programme, What Syria Means for Britain, on 9 September at 8pm, includes the interview) audibly gulped. "Are you seriously saying" that the failure to find the much-vaunted Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after Saddam was toppled had no impact on the Syria vote in the Commons, he asked. |
| "I am not saying that, of course," said Blair, but "not in this instance" where the physical evidence is beyond doubt. | "I am not saying that, of course," said Blair, but "not in this instance" where the physical evidence is beyond doubt. |
| Blair, David Miliband and other New Labour realists – routinely dubbed a Blairite conspiracy – have criticised Labour's stance on Syria as both tactically and strategically wrong for Ed Miliband's leadership. However popular it sounded on the night of the vote – and in the opinion polls – it would come to be seen as weak and opportunist, both at home and abroad, they implied. It is a legitimate point, though much depends on what happens next in Syria and the wider world. | Blair, David Miliband and other New Labour realists – routinely dubbed a Blairite conspiracy – have criticised Labour's stance on Syria as both tactically and strategically wrong for Ed Miliband's leadership. However popular it sounded on the night of the vote – and in the opinion polls – it would come to be seen as weak and opportunist, both at home and abroad, they implied. It is a legitimate point, though much depends on what happens next in Syria and the wider world. |
| Last Thursday's defeat was largely David Cameron's own fault, the result of ill-thought-out strategy, chaotic parliamentary tactics and defections from his own coalition. The more the Tory press seek to heap blame on Miliband, the less convincing they should sound. Their success in blaming Gordon Brown rather than reckless bankers for the financial crisis suggests that rationality may matter less than emotion. Voters who backed Miliband last week will blame him – not themselves – if they are proved wrong. | Last Thursday's defeat was largely David Cameron's own fault, the result of ill-thought-out strategy, chaotic parliamentary tactics and defections from his own coalition. The more the Tory press seek to heap blame on Miliband, the less convincing they should sound. Their success in blaming Gordon Brown rather than reckless bankers for the financial crisis suggests that rationality may matter less than emotion. Voters who backed Miliband last week will blame him – not themselves – if they are proved wrong. |
| The trust point Blair made on Today is tactless. Of course, voters and MPs are bound to be wary of atrocity stories that suit the hawk agenda, especially when WMD are involved. How could they not be? Yet Blair's substantive point remains a central one: Washington and its anti-war, pro-drone president vacillate because they fear what will happen if an already-weakened America is sucked into another unpopular war, one potentially far more dangerous. | The trust point Blair made on Today is tactless. Of course, voters and MPs are bound to be wary of atrocity stories that suit the hawk agenda, especially when WMD are involved. How could they not be? Yet Blair's substantive point remains a central one: Washington and its anti-war, pro-drone president vacillate because they fear what will happen if an already-weakened America is sucked into another unpopular war, one potentially far more dangerous. |
| But inaction carries costs too, as the people of Congo, Rwanda and other war-torn states can attest. What the suffering Syrian people need is diplomacy, but sometimes this can only be achieved when the warring parties are forced to accept they cannot win by military means. The credible threat of military action may be part of the mix. | But inaction carries costs too, as the people of Congo, Rwanda and other war-torn states can attest. What the suffering Syrian people need is diplomacy, but sometimes this can only be achieved when the warring parties are forced to accept they cannot win by military means. The credible threat of military action may be part of the mix. |
| But how to get there? Just because he's Blair and Cameron seems to listen to him more closely than Miliband does, doesn't mean he's always wrong. | But how to get there? Just because he's Blair and Cameron seems to listen to him more closely than Miliband does, doesn't mean he's always wrong. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |