Blair is still right on Iraq

Everyone is turning against Tony Blair at the moment.  It's not just the usual suspects at the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Guantanamo-obsessed Today programme.  It's not just Clare Short and Gordon Brown.  The Guardian, The Economist and Jack Dromey have now got the knives out for Labour's longest-serving leader.

At the root of Tony Blair's troubles isn't, of course, the loans-for-peerages scandal although it hasn't helped.  It's not the debt crisis in the NHS or the missed child poverty targets.  At the root of his troubles is the war in Iraq - which began three years ago yesterday.

Given all of this - and the fact that 54% of ConservativeHome Panel Members think the war on Iraq was a mistake - I hesitate to post this entry but I've just read the best speech I've come across in some time... and it was given by our Prime Minister.

The handling of the liberation of Iraq has, of course, left much to be desired but I still believe that it was the right thing to do.  In thinking that I part company with many Conservatives I otherwise respect but I'm happy to be in the company of many humanitarian leftists who know that the troubles and insecurities of the world are also our own in the post 9/11 world.

Here are two extracts from the PM's speech (which is really worth reading in full):

"This is not a clash between civilisations.  It is a clash about civilisation.  It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other.  And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain.  We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us.  Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy.  It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong..."

"Reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq.  Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious.  For sure, errors were made on our side.  It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces.  Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.  But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security.  The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence.  Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through sabotage.  People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam. These were not random acts.  They were and are a strategy.  When that strategy failed to push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.  They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow.  Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.  That to me is the painful irony of what is happening.  They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake.  They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.  Every act of carnage adds to the death toll.  But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it.  For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now."

Tony Blair is at his best when he is strategic.  His strategic political insights devastated Toryism for more than a decade.  His strategic understanding that 9/11 changed the world was also spot-on.  Tony Blair cannot, of course, manage anything.  He can't manage Britain's NHS or even relations with his Downing Street neighbour.  Katrina revealed the weaknesses of George W Bush's own management skills.  Bush and Blair have made winning the war in Iraq very difficult but they know that we could not wait for more 9/11s to happen.  Tomorrow's threats - because they are potentially so devastating in scale - have to pre-empted.  That is what is happening - bloodily and sometimes ineptly - in Iraq today and everyday.  Another left-winger - Christopher Hitchens uses a column in today's WSJ - 'Iraq is no "distraction" from al Qaeda' - to remind us of the absolute need for the forces of democracy and moderate Islam to prevail in Iraq.

Whether we supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq we cannot retreat now.  The Conservative Party leadership has a duty to help the public understand that, too.

Comments

[John Hustings]

Tony Blair has been at his best when he's fighting battles that are not directly his own. Over the war in the Balkans, for example, he was magnificently determined. Anyone who doubts that Blair is a true hawk on foreign policy -- and believes that he was merely coralled by Bush -- should read Andrew Rawnsley's "Servants of the People" to see how it was he that single-mindedly pushed for action in Yugoslavia while Clinton vacillated.

Blair has been a curious prime minister. Weak, vacillating and obsessed with public opinion on domestic matters, and single-minded and conviction led on foreign affairs.

[Richard]

How did the war advance British national interests?

[Ted]

Editor,

Sorry but I disagree - I believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was correct and the decision to overthrow Saddam, if necessary by invasion was correct. But if you go to war you must have both a battle plan and a plan of what to do next.

This speech contains both a very good preamble, stating clearly the issues we face but then the usual Blair sleight of hand -

"It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces"
- where's the response to this argument or a least acceptance that letting a large group of trained & armed men, mostly drawn from the governing but minoriy group was a basic error, the next sentence isn't it:

" the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided"
- the real worry I thought was about chemical weapons being used then next in editorials and from the sceptical ex generals was about what happened next, was there a plan? The issue of a humanitarian crisis was a less significant argument brought up by the anti war side as part of the consequences should we invade which gained importance as the last try to stop invasion in last few weeks and for Blair provided a means of bringing Clare Short on board by promising her a significant role.

"and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster."
Who from - I can't remember the Sun leading with de-Baathify now! or the Times or the Telegraph and certainly not the Guardian or Independent. Was it perhaps our US allies? Did our generals think we should disband the army?

"But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security."
No, Mr Blair, that was the basic problem from the days Basra was gutted by mobs looting buildings, when Bagdad saw everything but the Oil Ministry looted. Our occupation forces didn't seize arms depots before these were looted, we didn't enforce curfews, bring law and order. It wasn't August, that's when outsiders first suffered from the lack of security that Iraqis had suffered since the invasion.

"The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence." So why did you leave Iraq without law and order for months, why did you de-Baathify so quickly? Surely as intelligence had warned of terrorists in Iraq (and it was part of reason given to US public ) you had a plan against possible insurgency?

I believe what we did in 2003 was wrong because the Coalition entered a war without planning for victory, for the next steps. I believe Blair is right to identify the enemy, to say we must fight them but by making a mess of Iraq, the US & UK are weakened in the global struggle against terror. That is why it's difficult to accept either Bush or Blair can decide what is right today.

Iraq was not in 2003 under the influence of or supportive of Al-Qaeda, now it has been subsumed into the Jihadist struggle and we have not the forces or I think the strength of purpose to win a victory against the insurgents.

I don't agree we should leave early, wash our hands but neither can I accept an open ended committment.

[Derek]

The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that we have been given so many reasons for it, and now no one knows which one was the original. Surely an invasion for purely altruistic motives begs the question - why Iraq and not Zimbabwe or Sudan or other places? As Ted rightly says Saddam was not in league with Al-Qaeda. I believe the real reason for this war was the one that dare not speak its name - oil. And its not a bad reason. Although in these times of touchy feely politics no politician wants to say that they acted purely out of financial self interest, I believe it is the honest answer, but you'll never hear Mr Blair say so.

[John Hustings]

"I believe the real reason for this war was the one that dare not speak its name - oil."

I think this needs to be qualified. Sure, oil makes Iraq important; but many people think we invaded to "steal" the oil, or occupy Iraq. I don't believe that's true.

Actually, I believe the motivations for the war were quite high-minded. The "neo-conservatives" don't like the idea of being reliant on murderous dictators who happen to possess an important resource. It is the very fact that the neo-cons dislike "realpolitik" that made them form their interventionist foreign policy doctrine in the first place.

What annoys me about those who are anti-war is not the fact they are anti-war (that's a quite reasonable position), it's the fact they have so misunderstood the motivations of those in favour.

If you want to criticise Bush, then you should criticise him as a naive idealist, not as a meglomanical madman intent on controlling the world.

[Rob Largan]

I agree that the inspiration for the war was not about oil, but the neo-conservative ambition to spread democracy. Oil might have been an added incentive for invading Iraq first.

I disagreed with the war. But I fully support staying to finish the job. Retreat now would be devastating to Iraq and to the position of the UK in the world, not to mention the idea of democracy itself.

[Biodun]

If you want to criticise Bush, then you should criticise him as a naive idealist, not as a meglomanical madman intent on controlling the world.

His rhetoric is that of a megalomaniac, not an idealist.

You forget that criticism of Bush is not limited to him but to other members of his government.

I don't know anyone prepared to argue that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and co are naive idealists.

[Chad]

The war with Iraq was wrong and with the new President accepting that the country is now in civil war (although of course our defence secretary has a rosier view) it is far too early to look bad and judge quite what a disaster it was and quite what an impact is has made on world stability and peace in the first half of the 21st century.

I really don't care what the Azores 3 motivation was, it was not honourable even if the made protagonists had some genuine perverted belief in their honour of their motives.

That said, the incident at Safwan Hill on 21st March 2003, one week into the war told me all I needed to know about these men of "honour".

When the Sydney Morning Herald reported the use of napalm to clear a troublesome Iraqi observation post, it was not reported in our press, but was furiously denied by the US at the time.

However it was finally admitted in August 2003, but the US claimed not to have lied as technically it is not known as 'napalm' now but 'Mark 77' bombs.

Men of honour, indeed.

[John Hustings]

"His rhetoric is that of a megalomaniac, not an idealist. "

No it isn't. His rhetoric is extremely conciliatory.

[malcolm]

'The handling of the liberation of Iraq left much to be desired'-surely the understatement of the century!
Apart from the fact that a pack of lies were told to get us into this war,totally inadequate planning means we are losing (lost)the peace,a dangerous enemy in Iran has been greatly strenghtened as probably has Al-queda,and the likelehood is that Iraq will be beset by civil war and probable partition,thousands of people are dead it has been an absolute triumph.
I look at this speech and see a man desperately trying to justify himself and talking the same sort of weasel words he spoke at a Labour party conference when he promised to solve the problems of Africa.Words for Blair are cheap.
Actually Derek I don't believe that we went into Iraq for oil,I think the reasons were more base than that.I believe that we went in so Blair who expected an easy victory could emulate Maggie in the Falklands and take the political adulation that she received.Events have proved more difficult than anyone expected and he will never get it now, a tiny positive in what has been a national and international disaster.

[John Hustings]

"I don't know anyone prepared to argue that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and co are naive idealists."

Wolfowitz has always seemed very idealistic to me.

[Tory T]

It's Vietnam - but not in the sense that the anti-war brigade think.

Why did the West lose the war against Communism in Vietnam? Was it inevitable? No. It's very, very simple. The bad guys (and anyone who doubts that Ho Chi Min and Brezhnev were the bad guys isn't worth arguing with) had greater will power than the Americans.

This time it MUST be different. The self-hating anti-West left and their naive, fellow travelling allies must be faced down at home, just as the terrorists and other evil doers in Iraq must be beaten.

If we run away from Iraq then the West, and America and Britain in particular, will be on the back foot for a generation, inert and introverted as our enemies gather strength.

That's exactly what the left wants. Is it really what the rest of us want?

[Rob Largan]

"I don't know anyone prepared to argue that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and co are naive idealists."

Wolfowitz is an extremely idealist neo-conservative. Rice and Rumsfeld less so.

[Still Laughing]

Tory Thug presumably has this grim fate in mind?

Let them kill each other: it's not our problem.

[James Maskell]

When we entered the war, we were told that there were WMDs. In fact that was the only reason given for being in the war. The planning wasnt done properly and forward thinking about the political void wasnt done right. Iraq is very close to, if not already in civil war.

Its easy for Blair to argue that the war is justified as it took out Saddam. But the point is that it is not the reason Blair promoted as the reason for entering the war in the first place. Also, considering how relatively easy it was for the "Coalition of the Willing" to capture Baghdad, I cant see Saddam as being a huge threat to international security.

[Ted]

Don't mistake my comments above I am fully behind the need to actively work through armed force or other means to destroy Al Qaeda and its associates,

Neither do I think that Iraq was about base motives like oil. US interest in M.East Oil was historically around ownership of Aramco and other companies rather than oil imports, which it is more dependent on Western Hemisphere producers rather than mid east ones. Mid East oil is more important to Europe & Asia - which is why appeasers for oil are strong in those areas.

I think that in the months after 9/11, when Bush did not precipately attack anywhere, the White House & Pentagon recognised the need to actively attack Al Qaeda, its allies and host states and developed a strategy. They began correctly by removing the Taliban government, which was hosting major training facilities that had already contributed not only to terror attacks on the west but was involved on North Africa, Philippines, Russia, Balkans.

The next stage was in recognising that increasingly radical islam was becoming the only recognised alternative in most countries to the authoritarian governments of most mid-East countries. They needed to create an alternative to either theocracy or autocracy.

Saudi Arabia was the obvious target for change as the source of militant Wahabbism & much Al Qaeda funding but Iran in the 70's had shown danger of simply removing an autocrat. Saddam was a regional danger and remained a visible threat. Removing Saddam and bringing a democratic state into the area while occupying and therefore managing transition would change the dynamics and remove a monstrous dictatorship.

And it could have worked had the US & UK planned better.

Tory T is right in his message about will power but its not about self-hating cheese eating surrender monkeys etc. its also about whether we are progressing the fight or worsening our position. We need a positive disengagement plan which leaves a government strong enough to manage Iraq, either as a federal partitioned country or a unified state.

The Lib Dems run for cover policy would fatally undermine the US, and in event of another atrocity US response would be immediate and deadly (they would adopt the Israeli punishment theory) but not based on exposing armed forces or engagement but on missile strikes and bombers. We would be then in a really dangerous world.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I agree that the inspiration for the war was not about oil, but the neo-conservative ambition to spread democracy."

I'm sorry Rob, but with all due respect, the 'democratisation' excuse for the Iraq war is balls. The fact that we relied on undemocratic regimes to conduct the war blows that one well out of the water.

[Ted]

DVA

The aim was to put in place a democratic regime that would by it's existence force democratisation of the surrounding regimes friendly or unfriendly. Bush was clear (the first president for years to be so) that he saw the future in supporting democratic countries not continuing to support friendly but autocratic ones - OK compromised but message to those US friends was "change"

And for one brief shining moment it started to work - after we saw 10 million brave Iraqis vote, Egypt let in a chink of democracy in presidential elections, Jordan introduced a bit more democracy, Syria left the Lebanon, other countries press started to talk more freely...

Then bombs & US response, daily massacres of the innocents by "insurgents", publicity on Abu Ghraib & Fallujah and that brief shining moment was gone.

[David]

What a pity Tony Blair didn't make those arguments three years ago - he might have carried far more people (and, especially more conservatives) with him.

[Editor]

if we had left Saddam in place the authority of the international community would have been nil. Saddam would have learnt that he could kill his own people on a massive scale, subsidise suicide bombing against Israel, destabilise the region and break UN resolution after UN resolution and the consequences would be... none.

That would have been an invitation for every dictator to get up to the worst kinds of abuses.

Instead we are seeing Libya, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon all moving towards more openness.

Iraq is a mess - yes - but it's vital we stay there and finish the job. If we hadn't invaded Saddam would have emerged as a superpower in the region. If we had quit quickly after liberation Iraq would now being fought over by Iran, Turkey and Syria.

Liam Fox has said the following about Iraq tonight:

"I still believe it is right to want people to determine for themselves who governs them. It has to be right to help people to enjoy free speech and a legal framework that they themselves design. It has to be right to free them from a vicious and bloody tyrant who used chemical weapons against his own people. And it has to be a good thing to see the end of a regime that had started two wars, a regime that was almost certainly sanctions busting and attempting to gain nuclear technology.

Those who take a contrary view need to explain why Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world would be better off with Saddam still in control.

Like everyone else here I want to see our troops come home as soon as possible, but that can only be done when we are confident that the Iraq we leave behind is a functioning, stable nation. To depose a brutal dictator only to leave behind a failed state would be a terrible legacy. Worse still, it would see Iran left standing as the regional superpower – a situation US and British foreign policy has spent almost thirty years trying to avoid. If we leave Iraq prematurely the answer to the question “who won the Iraq war?” will be: Iran. That would be the worst answer of all."

There's other good stuff in his speech and I'll try and post on that tomorrow.

[malcolm]

If Fox had any belief in his words he would be campaigning for a massive INCREASE in British and other coalition troops to Iraq.As shadow defence spokesman he more than anybody should know what is happening there and as I'm sure he well knows coalition authority is receding at an alarming rate.His words therefore are utterly hollow.

[Andrew]

"If we hadn't invaded Saddam would have emerged as a superpower in the region"

Come on, you can't be serious there. Even Rice said in 2001 that Saddam was completely contained - he was powerless, and couldn't even control his own country. His tanks and jets had no fuel despite Iraq's oil wealth, which points to a country whose entire state structure had disintegrated. If he'd ever been daft enough to start another war, even the Kuwaitis would have had them for breakfast, let alone the Iranians. On top of that, there's a reason the Americans set up such a massive military presence in Bahrain/Qatar in the 90s - they intend to militarily control the region for decades, which would have completely deterred any adventures by Saddam.

Having said all that, I'd agree we need to finish the job. Having invaded with such complete lack of planning and breaktaking ideological naivete (Bremer said initial plans were for withdrawal after a month!), it's very much our responsibility to repair the mess. Those with a moral or practical case against the war beforehand do themselves no favours by attempting to apply the same attitude to the current, completely separate situation.

[Rob Largan]

"If Fox had any belief in his words he would be campaigning for a massive INCREASE in British and other coalition troops to Iraq.As shadow defence spokesman he more than anybody should know what is happening there and as I'm sure he well knows coalition authority is receding at an alarming rate.His words therefore are utterly hollow."

Fox is having to deal within the realm of political reality, and that reality is that Cameron has said we are on the 'same side' as the Lib Dems on Iraq and want to bring an end to it as quickly as possible. Any such campaign to increase British troops would fall on deaf ears inside the Labour government which doesnt have the political will to do anythin but slowly withdraw. All it would achieve is damage Conservative support.

[Gareth]

Ed,

Does your admirable determination to see UN resolutions upheld and International Law maintained, extend to Israel?

[Editor]

I don't in any way equate democratic Israel's defence of itself with totalitarian Iraq's aggression, Gareth.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If we had left Saddam in place the authority of the international community would have been nil. Saddam would have learnt that he could kill his own people on a massive scale, subsidise suicide bombing against Israel, destabilise the region and break UN resolution after UN resolution and the consequences would be... none.

That would have been an invitation for every dictator to get up to the worst kinds of abuses.

Instead we are seeing Libya, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon all moving towards more openness."

It's just a shame the same can't be said for allies in the war on terror and the Iraq war like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

For what it's worth I support the removal of Saddam Hussein, but I find it lamentable that this was given as the reason for the Iraq war only after the rest of the litany of excuses given (WMDs, democratisation, war on terror, Saddam wouldn't give George his ball back etc) were exposed as the whopping lies that they were.

With regards the authority of the international community, the US and its allies have probably done more to undermine this, as Hans Blix could tell you.

[Chad]

Yes, this theme keeps going round in circles, but no hawks have offered any proper criticsm of the russian/german/french plan from Feb 2003 to flood Iraq with UN soldiers whilst the inspections were going on.

The belief being that exposing Saddam in front of his own people as a weak buffoon would have been a vital catalyst for internal change with troops in place to keep things under control.

Saddam could have been deposed without the need for an invasion. He was weak and bluffing and contained, not a threat to the wider world. There was no need to blow the Iraqi internal infrastructure to pieces to create the right environment to topple him.

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.

There was an unnecessary rush to war, and the world is paying the price, not for the aim of deposing Saddam, but for the deeply flawed strategy of achieving it.

[JohninLondon]

To answer the last post - the UN does not have oodles of troops, that French/Russian idea was ridiculous on its face, simply a cover for their oil and arms interests in Iraq and their huge profits from Oil-for-Food.

As regards the official Tory view on Iraq - I find it very hard to discern what the policy is. All I can see is people sitting on fences, lots of weasel words. This issue is so important I doubt if I will be actively Tory at the next election.

[Mark Fulford]

Very fine words Chad.

[Editor]

If Saddam had been deposed in the way you describe Chad there would have been a massive and bloody power struggle for succession. UN troops wouldn't have been able to cope - just as they didn't cope in Bosnia and aren't coping in Sudan. Only US-UK troops are capable of holding the ring.

[Chad]

To answer the last post - the UN does not have oodles of troops, that French/Russian idea was ridiculous on its face, simply a cover for their oil and arms interests in Iraq and

If Saddam had been deposed in the way you describe Chad there would have been a massive and bloody power struggle for succession.

Indeed, but let's face it, they all act out of self-interest and both solutions were not a bloodless solution.

However, one strategy involved blowing the country's whole internal infrastructure to pieces and the other didn't.

There was no ideal solution, but there was one least-worst and unfortunately it was not the one that was given a chance.

[Editor]

Chad, we're just going to have to disagree on this.

I regard UN troops as vastly inferior to US/UK troops.

UN troops wouldn't have been able to destroy terrorist cells in a post-Saddam scenario.

They wouldn't have been able to protect key installations.

They wouldn't have deterred incursions from Iran, Syria, Turkey.

[Chad]

Hi Tim,

I regard UN troops as vastly inferior to US/UK troops
Sure, but what is wrong with them wearing blue hats and supporting a non-aggressive entrance to Iraq working alongside other countries too?

UN troops wouldn't have been able to destroy terrorist cells in a post-Saddam scenario.
It was the very destruction the country's infrastructure that allowed the terrorists to enter Iraq in the first place. It was the post-war chaos that enabled it to occur.

There is no evidence to suggest the same could have happened if troops had been in the country plus the main infrastructure had been still in place.

They wouldn't have been able to protect key installations
Yes, but I guess there is no need when they have been blown apart.

It was the unnecessary destruction of the internal infrastructure that caused the very concerns you raise.

[mac]

Blair's defence of the Iraq war may be a good speech, but for a more common sense approach untainted by lying, flip over to Liam Fox's defence speech.

At last some sanity in the political arena. What a pity he's not the new leader...

Poor old Blair - everyone's picking on him. What a shame after he's been so honest and honourable, ruined all our pensions condemning millions to poverty in old age while he has £4 million mortgage that no one knows how he's paying. He can make any number of brilliant speeches. A crook is a crook - Nixon didn't have the media to hide his filth. Can't we call time on the Blair lying machine any time soon?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If Saddam had been deposed in the way you describe Chad there would have been a massive and bloody power struggle for succession."

Thank goodness that Iraq isn't teetering on the brink of civil war right now then. Phew!

Oh hang on...

[Editor]

Saddam deposed... Kurds, Baathists, Shiites and Sunnis all engaged in a power struggle for the future of Iraq - neighbouring countries muscling in... and the Belgian Army in blue helmets holding the ring. Terrific.

[Chad]

Tim,

Is it just me, or are the UK and US members of the UN too?

It was not a choice of Belgium vs US/UK. The US and UK had the troops mobilised on the borders and for the reasons you detail would have been the right troops to act on behalf of the UN.

However, instead of taking this nno-aggressive, rushed approach, they just bombed their way in.

The only difference between the two strategies was that one involved bombing the internal infrastructure to pieces (thus creating post-war chaos) and the other would have preserved it.

[Chad]

"nno-aggressive, rushed approach"

s/b

"non-aggressive, non-rushed approach"

sorry.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Saddam deposed... Kurds, Baathists, Shiites and Sunnis all engaged in a power struggle for the future of Iraq - neighbouring countries muscling in... and the Belgian Army in blue helmets holding the ring. Terrific."

Saddam deposed... Kurds, Baathists, Shiites and Sunnis all engaged in a power struggle for the future of Iraq - neighbouring countries muscling in... and the US Army and a small contingent from its allies cluelessly trying to manage the situation, whilst actually exacerbating it, meaning matters will be much much worse when they eventually cut-and-run. Terrific.

[Editor]

The fundamental problem with your approach Chad is that Saddam would not have allowed the UN to "flood" his country with troops - particularly if they were American/ British.

Critics of the Iraq policy are always more credible until their alternative options start to be examined... like this one, Chad.

[Chad]

This was the same scary brave Saddam who had starting bricking himself, and started dismantling his al-samoud weapons and made a full 12,000 declaration of unilateral weapon destruction to the UN?

There was movement. The troops on the border were doing their job. There was simply no reason to rush in all guns blazing.

[Editor]

The difference Daniel is that the power struggle is happening within the context of a new democracy. Yes it's BLOODILY difficult but the Iraqi police and armed forces are being built up very steadily. We are managing the transition because we chose the timing of the transition. If we hadn't invaded the transition from Saddam would not have taken place at a time of our choosing - ie at a time when UK/US troops wouldn't have been able to help manage the transition.

[Chad]

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s."

Hans Blix reporting to the UN on the al-samoud weapons in Feb 2003. My stress. Full text here.

[Chad]

Bold off. Sorry.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Try again Chad ;-)

[Chad]

lol. Thanks. I wasn't going to try again.

[Editor]

You may not agree with what I say about Iraq but I do have the power to turn off the bold!!

[johnC]

'This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation.'

Coming from a Prime Minister who has presided over the most corrupt and sleazy government in history and a wholesale collapse in moral standards (aided by his legislation on licensing hours, gay sex, embryo research, civil partnerships etc. etc.) this is ironic. No wonder the response is 'If this is western so-called civilisation you can keep it.'

[JohninLondon]

Mark Steyn has it right on the wet attitude of most Tory leaders on Iraq. Fence-sitting, weaselly.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_03_19_corner-archive.asp#093002

Which - again - is why I won't be actively Tory until they get a spine again.

[malcolm]

'The Iraq police and army are being built up steadily'.Are you sure Tim?Interested to know where you are getting your evidence from.After nearly three years of training these troops it is interesting to note the US Army recently surmised that not a SINGLE Iraqi battalion was capable of independant oprations against insurgents.How long is it going to take?

[Jon White]

The facts are that Blair LIED. We were told that the reason for the war was that Saddam had WMDs that could hit us in 45 minutess. That was a blatant lie, for which the liar in chief has never apologised.

HOWEVER, if we are to truly have an ethical foreign policy, the war was the right thing to do. Saddam was a despot in the mold of Hitler or Stalin. Regime change was a worthy goal, which has been achieved.

But Blair did not say that was why we went to war. If he had, he would have my full respect, but truth and Blair in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

The fact that there are other dictators in the world does not make it wrong to try and take one of them out. That argument is silly. It's like saying that there are so many paedophiles out there, there is no point in prosecuting just one.

There was no plan to get out, or what we should do once Saddam had been toppled. (And there was never ever doubt that he would be. The 'feared' Republican Guard proved about as effective in defending their country as an ashtray on a motorcycle.) Whilst Blair & Bush must carry much blame for this, the post-war task would have been so much easier had we had the whole Security Council on-board. But expecting support from France and the other self-serving members was always going to be a triumph of hope over experience.

Bush Jnr gets so much blame. I would direct more at Bush Snr and the vaccilating Mr. Major. We could have finished it off in the first Gulf war - when we had complete international support, and Storming Norman's troops were only 70 Miles from Baghdad. However, Bush and Major didn't have the guts to see it through. It's difficult to play 'what if' with history, but cannot but wonder what would have happened if we hadn't allowed the treason of Heseltine to depose the great Lady. I think that she would have ensured that we got the job done then.