On Blair and Iraq
Tony Blair's attempt to distance himself from the current crisis in Iraq contains one argument which is obviously true, although the arguments which have been attributed to him by the BBC and others include several which are equally obvious nonsense.
He has a point when he argues that even if the USA and Britain had not invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussain, the series of revolutions throughout almost all the middle east which is sometimes called the "Arab Spring" would almost certainly still have affected Iraq.
The Syrian Ba'ath party - the sister party to Saddam's Iraqi Ba'ath party - is clinging to power in Syria, and the ISIS faction which has just over-run large parts of Iraq, and claims to have perpetrated the most ghastly and bloodthirsty massacre against the prisoners they took in the process, operates on both sides of the border and has been part of the rebellion against that Syrian regime for some years. This proves Blair's point that leaving dictators in power is no guarantee against violence, civil war, or the rise of extremism. It should also give the lie to some of the more simplistic descriptions which have been voiced in the media about the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars - e.g. those which try to explain what is going on simply as a battle between Sunni and Shiua. It is clearly more complex than that.
Blair would be on much weaker ground if he is arguing, as the BBC and others have interpreted his words, that the violence in Iraq has nothing to do with US and British actions during and in the aftermath of the invasion.
It is extremely difficult not to conclude from even a cursory study of the history of Iraq since 2003 that serious mistakes were made, and these have exacerbated the problems.
Blair's essay on the subject includes the following:
" ... the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.
"The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution."
You can indeed argue whether our policies have helped or not, and I think some of Blair's policies did not.
He's dead right that poor governance, weak institutions, oppression and a poor relationship between religion and government resulted in a toxic and unstable situaton, but I am much less convinced that any outcome was inevitable in a region which is as diverse and hard to predict as the Middle East.
What Blair has actually written is not nearly as indefensible as the views attributed to him by the BBC - who might just possibly have a score to settle where Blair and the invasion of Iraq are concerned- but his words still read to me like someone making excuses for his past actions.
Britain and the West should not ignore the bloodbath in Syria and Iraq - one is tempted to write blood Ba'ath but ISIS appears on the basis of their own propaganda to be even worse than Bashir Assad. However, not ignoring the problem must not mean going down the tramlines leading to the classic "Yes Minister" syllogism of:
"We Must Do Something
This is something
Therefore we must do it."
The West's policy towards Iraq should be aimed at ensuring that anything we do has the effect of reducing bloodshed and must not exacerbate it. Which may well be easier said than done.
He has a point when he argues that even if the USA and Britain had not invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussain, the series of revolutions throughout almost all the middle east which is sometimes called the "Arab Spring" would almost certainly still have affected Iraq.
The Syrian Ba'ath party - the sister party to Saddam's Iraqi Ba'ath party - is clinging to power in Syria, and the ISIS faction which has just over-run large parts of Iraq, and claims to have perpetrated the most ghastly and bloodthirsty massacre against the prisoners they took in the process, operates on both sides of the border and has been part of the rebellion against that Syrian regime for some years. This proves Blair's point that leaving dictators in power is no guarantee against violence, civil war, or the rise of extremism. It should also give the lie to some of the more simplistic descriptions which have been voiced in the media about the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars - e.g. those which try to explain what is going on simply as a battle between Sunni and Shiua. It is clearly more complex than that.
Blair would be on much weaker ground if he is arguing, as the BBC and others have interpreted his words, that the violence in Iraq has nothing to do with US and British actions during and in the aftermath of the invasion.
It is extremely difficult not to conclude from even a cursory study of the history of Iraq since 2003 that serious mistakes were made, and these have exacerbated the problems.
Blair's essay on the subject includes the following:
" ... the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.
"The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution."
You can indeed argue whether our policies have helped or not, and I think some of Blair's policies did not.
He's dead right that poor governance, weak institutions, oppression and a poor relationship between religion and government resulted in a toxic and unstable situaton, but I am much less convinced that any outcome was inevitable in a region which is as diverse and hard to predict as the Middle East.
What Blair has actually written is not nearly as indefensible as the views attributed to him by the BBC - who might just possibly have a score to settle where Blair and the invasion of Iraq are concerned- but his words still read to me like someone making excuses for his past actions.
Britain and the West should not ignore the bloodbath in Syria and Iraq - one is tempted to write blood Ba'ath but ISIS appears on the basis of their own propaganda to be even worse than Bashir Assad. However, not ignoring the problem must not mean going down the tramlines leading to the classic "Yes Minister" syllogism of:
"We Must Do Something
This is something
Therefore we must do it."
The West's policy towards Iraq should be aimed at ensuring that anything we do has the effect of reducing bloodshed and must not exacerbate it. Which may well be easier said than done.
Comments