It is not only God that will be Blair's judge over Iraq


His cravenly pro-US policy on the Middle East misunderstood Bush's real agenda and resulted in catastrophic failure

Avi Shlaim
Monday May 14, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2078846,00.html


Tony Blair's opposition to an immediate ceasefire in the Lebanon war last summer precipitated his downfall. Now that he has announced the date of his departure from Downing Street, his entire Middle East record needs to be placed under an uncompromising lens.

Blair came to office with no experience of, and virtually no interest in, foreign affairs, and ended by taking this country to war five times. Blair boasts that his foreign policy was guided by the doctrine of liberal interventionism. But the war in Iraq is the antithesis of liberal intervention. It is an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war, a war undertaken on a false prospectus and without sanction from the UN.

Blair's entire record in the Middle East is one of catastrophic failure. He used to portray Britain as a bridge between the two sides of the Atlantic. By siding with America against Europe on Iraq, however, he helped to destroy the bridge. Preserving the special relationship with America was the be all and end all of Blair's foreign policy. He presumably supported the Bush administration over Iraq in the hope of exercising influence on its policy. Yet there is no evidence that he exercised influence on any significant policy issue. His support for the neoconservative agenda on Iraq was uncritical and unconditional.

Blair failed to understand that America's really special relationship is with Israel, not Britain. Every time that George Bush had to choose between Blair and Ariel Sharon, he chose the latter. Blair's special relationship with Bush was a one-way street: Blair made all the concessions and got nothing tangible in return.

American policy towards the Middle East was doomed to failure from the start, and the end result has been to saddle Britain with a share of the responsibility for this failure. The premise behind American policy was that Iraq was the main issue in Middle East politics and that regime change in Baghdad would weaken the Palestinians and force them to accept a settlement on Israel's terms. The road to Jerusalem, it was argued, went through Baghdad. This premise was wrong. Iraq was a non-issue; it did not pose a threat to any of its neighbours, and certainly not to America or Britain. The real issue was Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and America's support for Israel in its savage colonial war against the Palestinian people.

When seeking the approval of the Commons for the war, Blair pledged that after Iraq was disarmed, he and his American friends would seek a solution to the Palestine problem. He has utterly failed to deliver on this promise.

True, Blair was the driving force behind the "road map" that envisaged the emergence of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005. But Sharon wrecked the road map. In return for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon exacted a written American agreement to Israel's retention of the major settlement blocs on the West Bank. Blair publicly endorsed the nefarious Sharon-Bush pact. This was the most egregious British betrayal of the Palestinians since the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Blair and Bush have also betrayed the Iraqi people. To begin with, there was much brave rhetoric about bringing democracy to Iraq and turning it into a model for the rest of the Arab world. But the rhetoric was empty. The neoconservatives who drove American policy were interested in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and in nothing else.

The allied invasion of Iraq was not an isolated episode but part of the so-called global war on terror. But the overthrow of the Ba'ath regime in Iraq only exacerbated the problem of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq has given a powerful boost to al-Qaida and its confederates by damaging Britain's reputation and radicalising its young Muslims. The London bombs may not have been a direct result of the Iraq war - but they are indisputably a part of the blowback.

What we have in Iraq today is chronic instability, an incipient civil war, endemic violence and anarchy, an upsurge of terrorist activity of every kind, and a national insurgency to which the allies have no answer. The neocons did not bother to plan for postwar reconstruction. Occupation was accompanied by devastation and destruction on a massive scale and a civilian death toll estimated by one source at 655,000.

The allies pride themselves on having brought democracy to the Iraqi people, but they have failed in the primary duty of any government: to provide security for the civilian population. The upshot is that America and its pillion passenger in the "war against terror" are now embroiled in a vicious, protracted and unwinnable conflict.

Blair has the audacity to say that God will be his judge over the Iraq war. This is a curious attitude for a democratic politician to adopt. History will surely pass a harsh judgment on Blair. He has the worst record on the Middle East of any British prime minister in the past century, infinitely worse than that of Anthony Eden, who at least had the decency to accept responsibility for the Suez debacle.

· Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at St Antony's College, Oxford, and author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.

avi.shlaim@st-antonys.oxford.ac.uk

This article should have been written years ago and repeated loudly and often since.

Karen

I've been banging on about this ever since I investigated the PNAC and the backgrounds of the main players. Avi Shlaim has hit every nail squarely on the head in his excellent article.

The Israeli link is there in black and white for all to see. It is shameful that most of the media in this country have not exposed this abomination for all to see. I wonder why???

The more I learn about these matters the more I am certain that Tony Blair is a Neo-con believer. The Road Map was a smoke screen to camouflage the real intent of Neo-con/Zionist project in Iraq.

Sooner or later Bush and Blair will face trial for war crimes.

If after 10 years in office, and working closely with bush on foreign policy for many of those years, Blair hasn't heard of PNAC and their ambitions, there's something seriously wrong! So, yes, I agree that Blair is probably a neo-con believer.
Wouldn't that, on some level, make him a traitor too?

I hope you're right about those war crimes trials!

I guess I can see your point though I tend to like Tony Blair. I spent enough time with the British Forces in several capacities to see, he was not universally disliked. Actually, pretty popular for a time. That was then. Things may have changed.

Played with some guys from Hereford for awhile. Once upon a time we had a pretty serious "bruhaha" with some foks from Ireland...and the boys from Hereford joined in on our side saying...."Can't let you yanks have all the fun, can we"? Always liked the Brits.....they needed very little excuse to double up a fist and join in. I can't think of any country that was more enjoyable to fight alongside.

Must be a man thang. And still....I like Tony for reasons Ill keep to myself in the interest of not causing an incident.

I suspect that had Tony not been such a doof and followed Bush so closely,
(having yer nose up someones ass kinda has an effect on perspective)
had he not followed blindly into Iraq and offered his advice on Lebanon,
it's likely the Brits would still be fond of good old Tony.

When he was first elected in '97 we partied hard! I can still feel the anticipation, the hope and the sheer relief that the torries were out of office. What a fantastic feeling!
And I have to be honest and say that personally I'm better off and have much more opportunity than I ever thought I would. The economy is strong, and that has to be good.
There is peace, and the beginning of actual communication/cooperation between the Loyalists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland!!!
Social services, the health service, education are all underfunded and over beurocracised (please tell me you know what word I'm after there, cos I'm at a loss to spell that one!) but I suspect that would be the case no matter who was in power.
But, and it's a big but, his support of neo-conservativism and PNAC empire building, preemptive wars, and and this, so called, war against terrorism, not to mention trident renewal, are all unforgivable.

My feelings towards Tony Blair are mixed.




Yeah, I don't think we're known for walking away from a fight.
The woman in me says 'more's the pity, tutut', the Brit/scouser in me says 'come and have a go if you think your hard enough!'... and Again I am conflicted!


Ah, see, now you've gotta tell! Anything less is just teasing!

Karen

I often reflect on that sad day in May 1994 when John Smith died. I stood outside the Church in Edinburgh with hundreds of others in utter silence at the time of his funeral service. The genuine regard in which ordinary people held him was apparent that day.

Oh, how I wish he had lived to be Prime Minister. I can say without a shadow of doubt that he would not have followed George Bush down the road to the illegal war in Iraq. He would not have have been ignorant of or been taken in by PNAC and the Neo-con cabal. He was too astute and wise a man for that to have happened.

I am also certain that our country would have be a much fairer place, much more at ease with itself and with our European cousins than it is now.

Good riddence to Tony Blair. Socialist? - no way. Social Democrat? - no way. Neo-con? - you bet. Crypto Fascist? - a strong possibility.

His epitaph:-

I came. I saw. I was Neo-conned.