Amanda Bowman: Blair Teaches a Lesson on Iraq War
[Amanda Bowman is the former New York Director of the Center for Security Policy. She is currently the CEO. of the Atlantic Bridge, a policy organization whose mission is to promote the Special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.]
Last week Tony Blair appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry — a public hearing launched by Gordon Brown with the seemingly innocuous purpose of learning the lessons of the Iraq war. Is this a rare example of a party being transparent and turning a critical eye inward on itself — and doing it in front of rolling cameras unlike the U.S. Senate’s health care debate? Certainly not.
This inquiry is not about educating the public on the hard won lessons learned on the Allies’ road to the Surge, nor is it about applying what has been learned to the situation in Afghanistan.
The Inquiry has an “in the beginning” quality intended to focus the public’s attention on the liberal narrative of Bush and Blair — the “cowboy” and his “poodle”— rushing to war without the necessary supporting evidence.
It is a public discovery process that, if successful, might just feed a future inquiry, this time one with legal, “internationalist” teeth. The E.U. has already snubbed Blair by passing him over for its presidency, and Brussels may add to that injury the insult of the trying him at The Hague for war crimes.
The protesters outside the inquiry held signs condemning Blair as a war criminal. A casket was carried by “pallbearers” with bloody hands wearing blood soaked Blair masks with his signature Cheshire cat smile set in ghoulish proportions. Since it is only an inquiry and not a war crimes trial, to these folks the Chilcot Inquiry is a political “white wash.”
Inside Blair comported himself admirably in the dock. The panel pursued the narrative of an “illegal rush to war” to a clue and Blair answered with type of Churchillean clarity that has distinguished him amongst his Labour Party peers.
It was unfortunate that Blair’s performance happened on a Friday — the best day in politics when you want to limit public attention. One would guess the choice of date was Blair’s, or at least that he had input. It was only fitting that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s politics of the press releases was checked-mated.
It is the responsibility of this week’s news cycle to reflect on what Blair’s words and the process that he passed through.
On the matter of war — and why we fight — the difference between Blair and Thatcher, and Blair and Bush are of degree and not kind. I don’t know if Blair has ever read Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech given at Fulton Missouri, but Sir Winston’s Atlanticist principles and strategic grammar are within Blair’s political DNA on issues of War and Peace. The real differences between Blair and the above-mentioned company are differences that stop at the waters-edge.
For Blair, 9/11 changed the “calculus of risk” with regards to Iraq. Containment was no longer a prudent policy in the age of “unrepresentative extremism” with state actors possessing WMD and a demonstrated willingness to use non-state actors as warfare proxies. What checks our enemies is not their will, but the deadly means at their disposal. They haven’t done it because they don’t have it yet.
And according to Blair, if you think it’s right, you do it right. When it came to defense, the U.K. would not be free riders but contribute substantially. On Friday, Blair took credit for and proudly defended his decision to invade Iraq, to topple Saddam’s sadistic regime. Pol Pot died in his bed of old age with the blood of millions on his hands. Saddam died at the end of hangman’s noose, not by our hands but by those of a liberated Iraqi people and a new government dealing with its own totalitarian garbage in a liberal, constitutional way.
There are couple additional lessons that the former Prime-minster should have delivered...
Read entire article at Real Clear World
Last week Tony Blair appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry — a public hearing launched by Gordon Brown with the seemingly innocuous purpose of learning the lessons of the Iraq war. Is this a rare example of a party being transparent and turning a critical eye inward on itself — and doing it in front of rolling cameras unlike the U.S. Senate’s health care debate? Certainly not.
This inquiry is not about educating the public on the hard won lessons learned on the Allies’ road to the Surge, nor is it about applying what has been learned to the situation in Afghanistan.
The Inquiry has an “in the beginning” quality intended to focus the public’s attention on the liberal narrative of Bush and Blair — the “cowboy” and his “poodle”— rushing to war without the necessary supporting evidence.
It is a public discovery process that, if successful, might just feed a future inquiry, this time one with legal, “internationalist” teeth. The E.U. has already snubbed Blair by passing him over for its presidency, and Brussels may add to that injury the insult of the trying him at The Hague for war crimes.
The protesters outside the inquiry held signs condemning Blair as a war criminal. A casket was carried by “pallbearers” with bloody hands wearing blood soaked Blair masks with his signature Cheshire cat smile set in ghoulish proportions. Since it is only an inquiry and not a war crimes trial, to these folks the Chilcot Inquiry is a political “white wash.”
Inside Blair comported himself admirably in the dock. The panel pursued the narrative of an “illegal rush to war” to a clue and Blair answered with type of Churchillean clarity that has distinguished him amongst his Labour Party peers.
It was unfortunate that Blair’s performance happened on a Friday — the best day in politics when you want to limit public attention. One would guess the choice of date was Blair’s, or at least that he had input. It was only fitting that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s politics of the press releases was checked-mated.
It is the responsibility of this week’s news cycle to reflect on what Blair’s words and the process that he passed through.
On the matter of war — and why we fight — the difference between Blair and Thatcher, and Blair and Bush are of degree and not kind. I don’t know if Blair has ever read Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech given at Fulton Missouri, but Sir Winston’s Atlanticist principles and strategic grammar are within Blair’s political DNA on issues of War and Peace. The real differences between Blair and the above-mentioned company are differences that stop at the waters-edge.
For Blair, 9/11 changed the “calculus of risk” with regards to Iraq. Containment was no longer a prudent policy in the age of “unrepresentative extremism” with state actors possessing WMD and a demonstrated willingness to use non-state actors as warfare proxies. What checks our enemies is not their will, but the deadly means at their disposal. They haven’t done it because they don’t have it yet.
And according to Blair, if you think it’s right, you do it right. When it came to defense, the U.K. would not be free riders but contribute substantially. On Friday, Blair took credit for and proudly defended his decision to invade Iraq, to topple Saddam’s sadistic regime. Pol Pot died in his bed of old age with the blood of millions on his hands. Saddam died at the end of hangman’s noose, not by our hands but by those of a liberated Iraqi people and a new government dealing with its own totalitarian garbage in a liberal, constitutional way.
There are couple additional lessons that the former Prime-minster should have delivered...