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/2014/jun/16/blair-forthright-iraq-isis-threat-west-failure

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

Version 0 Version 1
Blair is admirably forthright in refusing to admit he screwed up over Iraq Blair is admirably forthright in refusing to admit he screwed up over Iraq
(about 1 hour later)
It is a basic error shared by both sides in the west's self-absorbed row about Iraq and other trouble spots in the Middle East, an error made by Tony Blair and by his critics out in force on Monday after the former PM dared to suggest that the Isis (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) threat to northern Iraq stems from the west's failure to intervene in Syria.It is a basic error shared by both sides in the west's self-absorbed row about Iraq and other trouble spots in the Middle East, an error made by Tony Blair and by his critics out in force on Monday after the former PM dared to suggest that the Isis (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) threat to northern Iraq stems from the west's failure to intervene in Syria.
The mistake is to imagine that what the west does in the region matters more than what the region does of its own accord. Tony Blair, George Bush, Lawrence of Arabia, Anthony ("Suez") Eden – all passing foreigners who made far less impact on the ancient flow of alliances, ambitions and hatreds which have watered the cradle of so many civilisations for millennia. The mistake is to imagine that what the west does in the region matters more than what the region does of its own accord. Tony Blair, George Bush, Lawrence of Arabia, Anthony ("Suez") Eden – all passing foreigners who made far less impact on the ancient flow of alliances, ambitions and hatreds that have watered the cradle of so many civilisations for millennia.
That doesn't absolve Bush and Blair (ignorant fellows both), Eden or poor deluded Lawrence from what they caused to be done in Egypt, Iraq, Palestine and the rest. Or caused not to be done, which has become the dominant calculation since the disastrous occupations of Baghdad and – further east – Kabul prompted western leaders to greater caution. On Radio 4 on Monday morning, William Hague ("It's not all about us") was a study in well-mannered diplomatic impotence.That doesn't absolve Bush and Blair (ignorant fellows both), Eden or poor deluded Lawrence from what they caused to be done in Egypt, Iraq, Palestine and the rest. Or caused not to be done, which has become the dominant calculation since the disastrous occupations of Baghdad and – further east – Kabul prompted western leaders to greater caution. On Radio 4 on Monday morning, William Hague ("It's not all about us") was a study in well-mannered diplomatic impotence.
Did Blair screw up over Iraq? Of course he did. His biggest strategic miscalculation was not to use the leverage he had over George Bush as the only substantial western ally to join the 2003 invasion – the "coalition of the willing" – to extract a better plan for the occupation of Saddam Hussein's ill-governed state once the fighting was over (even sooner than expected). A substantial plan, not the semi-privatised occupation lite devised by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and compliant generals might – might – have made Iraqis more accepting and given the ousted Sunni minority less scope for launching their bloody civil war against their Shia fellow-countrymen, whose own leaders' sectarian political folly fuelled the flames. Did Blair screw up over Iraq? Of course he did. His biggest strategic miscalculation was not to use the leverage he had over George Bush as the only substantial western ally to join the 2003 invasion – the "coalition of the willing" – to extract a better plan for the occupation of Saddam Hussein's ill-governed state once the fighting was over (even sooner than expected). A substantial plan, not the semi-privatised occupation-lite devised by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and compliant generals, might – might – have made Iraqis more accepting and given the ousted Sunni minority less scope for launching their bloody civil war against their Shia countrymen, whose own leaders' sectarian political folly fuelled the flames.
The White House and Downing Street should have known this; indeed, some wise experts told them at the time, along with the defeatist quiet-life diplomats, the soldiers who don't like getting their kit dirty and the usual crowd of well-meaning idealists and nostalgic Soviet-apologists.The White House and Downing Street should have known this; indeed, some wise experts told them at the time, along with the defeatist quiet-life diplomats, the soldiers who don't like getting their kit dirty and the usual crowd of well-meaning idealists and nostalgic Soviet-apologists.
The fact that it all went so horribly wrong, a rare victory for the anti-realpolitik school, and amid so much suffering, has encouraged them to preach the non-interventionist gospel (western intervention, that is) with unhappy results for a lot of Syrians. Never mind, their own adaptable consciences are clear. The fact that it all went so horribly wrong, a rare victory for the anti-realpolitik school, and amid so much suffering, has encouraged them to preach the non-interventionist gospel (western intervention, that is), with unhappy results for a lot of Syrians. Never mind, their own adaptable consciences are clear.
Blair is right to make the Iraq–Syria connection, to point out that though wrong in much else of what he wrote yesterday in his own defence – as a measured Guardian leader explains. It has not prevented the Daily Mail orchestrating a very C-list crowd of OAPs, plus Nigel "Putin" Farage and ex-ambassador Chris Meyer, to condemn him for what the Mail calls "slaughter that shames Blair." Blair is right to make the Iraq–Syria connection, to point out that though wrong in much else of what he wrote yesterday in his own defence – as a measured Guardian leader explains. It has not prevented the Daily Mail from orchestrating a very C-list crowd of OAPs, plus Nigel "Putin" Farage and ex-ambassador Chris Meyer, to condemn him for what the Mail calls "slaughter that shames Blair".
John Prescott and – God help us – Clare Short (talking nonsense on Sky News yesterday) have clambered on the bandwagon. Over-promoted General Sir Mike Rose, a failed military leader in bloody Bosnia, has his three ha'porth in the paper, while Chris Huhne solemnly accuses Blair of telling lies in his Guardian column. Across at the Telegraph, star columnist and part-time mayor Boris Johnson, who has probably given the issue three of four minutes of half-concentrated thought, calls Blair "unhinged". John Prescott and – God help us – Clare Short (talking nonsense on Sky News yesterday) have clambered on to the bandwagon. Over-promoted General Sir Mike Rose, a failed military leader in bloody Bosnia, has his three ha'porth in the paper, while Chris Huhne solemnly accuses Blair of telling lies in his Guardian column. Across at the Telegraph, star columnist and part-time mayor Boris Johnson, who has probably given the issue three of four minutes of half-concentrated thought, calls Blair "unhinged".
As a gallery of grotesques, mostly conspicuous for not resigning their well-paid jobs at the time (just like the string of witnesses dumping on Blair at the Chilcot (where is it?) inquiry, it is enough to make a cat laugh. But Blair has brought their fire down upon himself by writing his "we are not to blame for Iraq" article in yesterday's Sunday Times and not apologising enough for his own mistakes.As a gallery of grotesques, mostly conspicuous for not resigning their well-paid jobs at the time (just like the string of witnesses dumping on Blair at the Chilcot (where is it?) inquiry, it is enough to make a cat laugh. But Blair has brought their fire down upon himself by writing his "we are not to blame for Iraq" article in yesterday's Sunday Times and not apologising enough for his own mistakes.
There's something admirably forthright about Blair's willingness to do this and take the abuse, stubbornly defending his tattered corner from fairweather friends like the Mail and Telegraph, which I seem to remember being gung-ho in support for the war in 2003. Should he have said it? Probably not, so I reluctantly conclude; he's too divisive a figure, and his very presence in the fray detracts from the undoubted substance of his arguments.There's something admirably forthright about Blair's willingness to do this and take the abuse, stubbornly defending his tattered corner from fairweather friends like the Mail and Telegraph, which I seem to remember being gung-ho in support for the war in 2003. Should he have said it? Probably not, so I reluctantly conclude; he's too divisive a figure, and his very presence in the fray detracts from the undoubted substance of his arguments.
So being more than half right isn't good enough when the results are likely to be counter-productive. But it's always worth reminding ourselves that today's Isis trigger men and their paymasters are responsible for whom they slaughter and why, just as Blair, Bush and their armies were for their mistakes (sometimes crimes). So being more than half right isn't good enough when the results are likely to be counter-productive. But it's always worth reminding ourselves that today's Isis triggermen and their paymasters are responsible for whom they slaughter and why, just as Blair, Bush and their armies were for their mistakes (sometimes crimes).
In the larger context the post-2003 Sunni insurgents in Iraq – the "resistance" in Hampstead patois – were responsible for all the deaths they caused among fellow Iraqis, more deaths than the coalition, I assume, though the core-counters are usually silent on that point. In doing so, the assailants maintain an ancient tradition: the Sunni caliph Mansur founded Baghdad in 672 and left a crypt full of Shia corpses below his palace. In the larger context, the post-2003 Sunni insurgents in Iraq – the "resistance", in Hampstead patois – were responsible for all the deaths they caused among fellow Iraqis, more deaths than the coalition, I assume, though the counters are usually silent on that point. In doing so, the assailants maintain an ancient tradition: the Sunni caliph Mansur founded Baghdad in 672 and left a crypt full of Shia corpses below his palace.
Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu Bakr, had already plundered the orginal settlement, according to Justin Marozzi's new history of Baghdad (Allen Lane £25) – warmly reviewed here . But worse was to follow. Baghdad became one of the great cities of the world – culture and science included – before the Mongul assault of 1258. What survived the wreckage was finished off by Tamerlane the Great (himself a Muslim) in 1401. Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu Bakr, had already plundered the original settlement, according to Justin Marozzi's new history of Baghdad (Allen Lane, £25, warmly reviewed here). But worse was to follow. Baghdad became one of the great cities of the world – culture and science included – before the Mongul assault of 1258. What survived the wreckage was finished off by Tamerlane the Great (himself a Muslim) in 1401.
It was the rotting Ottoman remains which the British occupied (a big eye on the oil) and started modernising (that Blairish word) after the first world war, with largely unsuccessful results that culminated in Saddam Hussein from a pro-Nazi clan in Tikrit, a city now occupied by Isis. Blair probably doesn't know much of this, neither do most of his armchair critics. But in the larger, longer scheme of Middle East affairs, their views won't count for much – let alone for long. It was the rotting Ottoman remains that the British occupied (a big eye on the oil) and started modernising (that Blairish word) after the first world war, with largely unsuccessful results that culminated in Saddam Hussein, from a pro-Nazi clan in Tikrit, a city now occupied by Isis. Blair probably doesn't know much of this, neither do most of his armchair critics. But in the larger, longer scheme of Middle East affairs, their views won't count for much – let alone for long.