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/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/tony-blair-syria-iraq-questions

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria: forget it's Tony Blair speaking, and his questions seem sensible Syria: forget it's Tony Blair speaking, and his questions seem sensible
(12 days later)
Whenever Tony Blair speaks out, usually from a comfortable foreign perch, he evokes furious responses from his many detractors. Why, a Twitter user demanded of me, had I not carried out a citizens' arrest on the man? I was minded to say that the former prime minister had been speaking to me for my radio documentary on Syria from the far east, so any physical intervention would have been a bit difficult.Whenever Tony Blair speaks out, usually from a comfortable foreign perch, he evokes furious responses from his many detractors. Why, a Twitter user demanded of me, had I not carried out a citizens' arrest on the man? I was minded to say that the former prime minister had been speaking to me for my radio documentary on Syria from the far east, so any physical intervention would have been a bit difficult.
Blair makes the perfect case study for the psychologist's chair. Pretty much everyone now admits that Iraq was a disaster – not just the occupation, but the road to war. Those elusive weapons of mass destruction, that dodgy dossier, the spurious legal advice, the dodging and weaving at the United Nations: they've all left their scars. Even David Cameron, I reminded Blair, had said that last week's vote in the Commons had been lost because "people felt let down" over Iraq.Blair makes the perfect case study for the psychologist's chair. Pretty much everyone now admits that Iraq was a disaster – not just the occupation, but the road to war. Those elusive weapons of mass destruction, that dodgy dossier, the spurious legal advice, the dodging and weaving at the United Nations: they've all left their scars. Even David Cameron, I reminded Blair, had said that last week's vote in the Commons had been lost because "people felt let down" over Iraq.
Nope, Blair said, that was not exactly the case. He repeated to me over and again, the public's loss of trust in politicians' assurances on the eve of military action in Syria had nothing to do with the way the Iraq war was sold to the public. It was instead due to the protracted nature of the occupation.Nope, Blair said, that was not exactly the case. He repeated to me over and again, the public's loss of trust in politicians' assurances on the eve of military action in Syria had nothing to do with the way the Iraq war was sold to the public. It was instead due to the protracted nature of the occupation.
Why does he continue to argue this line, against the views not just of out-and-out opponents of the war, but now most in the military, the diplomatic service and the intelligence community? Is it because Blair genuinely believes this; perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers that he must stick to the line; is it because he cannot reconcile it with his conscience? Such questions are above the pay grade of the mere journalist.Why does he continue to argue this line, against the views not just of out-and-out opponents of the war, but now most in the military, the diplomatic service and the intelligence community? Is it because Blair genuinely believes this; perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers that he must stick to the line; is it because he cannot reconcile it with his conscience? Such questions are above the pay grade of the mere journalist.
Yet strip out this one area of denial, pretend you didn't know it was Blair speaking, and you might feel minded to agree with much of what he said. Like Barack Obama, he sees no moral valour in walking on the other side while chemical weapons are deployed in Syria. Like Obama and François Hollande, he despairs of the cynicism of the Russians and Chinese in their defence of Bashar al-Assad and the impasse at the UN security council that now feels impossible to dislodge. And like most right-minded people he worries about a world in conflict "without a referee", as the French political scientist Dominique Moisi once put it.Yet strip out this one area of denial, pretend you didn't know it was Blair speaking, and you might feel minded to agree with much of what he said. Like Barack Obama, he sees no moral valour in walking on the other side while chemical weapons are deployed in Syria. Like Obama and François Hollande, he despairs of the cynicism of the Russians and Chinese in their defence of Bashar al-Assad and the impasse at the UN security council that now feels impossible to dislodge. And like most right-minded people he worries about a world in conflict "without a referee", as the French political scientist Dominique Moisi once put it.
So where does Britain stand now that MPs have voted no? That's the topic of my programme for BBC Radio 4 on Monday. The perhaps self-delusional certainties of the "special relationship" with the US may be coming to an end, but with the Conservatives leading Britain at a canter away from the European Union, are we content in our new blissful isolation? For all the hypocrisies of the past, are we prepared to leave a rights-based international law to others, or to no one? Those are questions Blair continues to pose. His problem – and the tragedy for those who advocate a more internationalist foreign policy – is that fewer and fewer people are listening.So where does Britain stand now that MPs have voted no? That's the topic of my programme for BBC Radio 4 on Monday. The perhaps self-delusional certainties of the "special relationship" with the US may be coming to an end, but with the Conservatives leading Britain at a canter away from the European Union, are we content in our new blissful isolation? For all the hypocrisies of the past, are we prepared to leave a rights-based international law to others, or to no one? Those are questions Blair continues to pose. His problem – and the tragedy for those who advocate a more internationalist foreign policy – is that fewer and fewer people are listening.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.