TONY BLAIR AND THE CHILCOT LYNCH MOB

IN DEFENCE OF TONY BLAIR 

Tony Blair is now the most excoriated British politician since Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain reviled, particularly on the left, for his policy of appeasing Nazi Germany. Tony Blair is reviled, particularly on the left, for altogether different reasons. Appeasement of fascist style regimes such as Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia and Saddam Hussein’s Baathist state, nor the Islamacist fanatics of Al Qaida, held no appeal for Blair. Which makes the visceral hatred that Blair produces on the far left a particularly interesting case study.

Perhaps a little throat clearing is required here. I have my own reasons for disliking Tony Blair, particularly what he did to the Labour Party, turning it into something closer to the American Democrats than part of the British democratic socialist tradition. In embracing the Thatcherite mantra of public/bad private/good he did irreparable damage to the provision of education, health and social care and provided a template which the Tories were only too happy to emulate and build upon.
When it came to standing up to Slobodan Milosevic, who had set about ‘ethnically cleansing’ Kosovo of its predominantly Albanian Muslim community, Blair had my full support. I was surprised to see such vehement opposition to this policy, not just from the ‘realpolitik’ right, exemplified by the cadaverous Douglas Hurd, but from the left, and not just the usual suspects of the SWP, but a broad spectrum encompassing Noam Chomsky and John Pilger. This was not just a disagreement about tactics or emphasis but vehement opposition, fought with a venom and vitriol born of a deep loathing of NATO and the United States. 

After 9/11 the scale of this hatred became manifest for all to see in a notorious edition of The London Review of books: - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n19/nine-eleven-writers/11-september

With the removal of the Taliban and destruction of Saddam Hussein’s terror state this hatred knew no bounds, this was loathing beyond reason, beyond argument, and it was held self-evident that Blair and Bush represented the highest degree of evil cynicism. Indeed compared to this duo Saddam Hussein appeared as a misunderstood minor regional nationalist. Of his gassing of the Kurds and genocidal war on the Marsh Arabs the only likely response being to state that western companies supplied the means or that then Saddam had been an ally of the west against Iran.[1] Leaving to one side the undoubted truth of these statements, it is surely perverse to argue that previous complicity in Saddam’s crimes somehow invalidated any later recognition that these were mistaken policies and that Saddam was an out of control criminal psychopath and should now be removed.[2]
As to the arguments put forward about International Law being holy writ that safeguarded Saddam from the danger of regime change in perpetuity, one can only imagine the laughter of Revolutionaries down the ages from Proudhon to Che Guevara at this elevation of ‘international law’ when it serves to protect thuggish ruling elites, like Saddam Hussein’s and Bashir Assad’s Baathist totalitarianism.[3]

Donald Rumsfeld

Now a major crime was committed in Iraq, and somebody should be held to account for it, but this was not the overthrow of Saddam but in the complete failure to plan for the occupation that followed it. In this crime Blair was certainly complicit, but would be a minor defendant in the case. The real culprits being George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Bremer. The behaviour of Rumsfeld in particular whose ‘shit happens’ philosophy represented a degree of criminality worthy of a Mongol warlord.
With hindsight some of the Baathist infrastructure, particularly the army, should have been left in place, but this would have been a difficult decision, and one can only imagine the howls of protest and derision from the anti-war left had this happened.
As it happens the complete destruction of Saddam’s totalitarian dictatorship left a vacuum that was quickly filled by Wahhabi Islamist fanatics and Al Qaida. Vicious sectarian killers lauded as resistance fighters by the likes of George Galloway and compared to the French Marquis by Tariq Ali. 

Whatever the Chilcot Inquiry concludes the SWP/Stop the War lynch mob have already judged Blair guilty and one can only conclude that they would happily string him up from a nearby lamp post should they get the opportunity.
But those who would judge, have themselves a case to answer. If the far left had had its way in the latter part of the 20th Century and first decades of this the following would be the case.
1. Bosnia/Herzegovina would be divided between Serbia and Croatia with its Muslim population murdered, deported or second class citizens deprived of their civil liberties.
2. Kosovo ‘cleansed’ of its Muslim population
3. The medieval Taliban with Al Qaida as its honoured guests still ruling Afghanistan. With all the consequences for all the citizens, particularly women and girls of that state.
4. Saddam Hussein would still be in power, certainly in possession of chemical weapons and probably a crude nuclear device.
5. Libya still ruled by a psychotic madman.

The charge sheet could go on, but that is enough to be going on with. Respecting President Assad in Syria they have got their way and this vile dictator remains still safely in place.
This is quite a record and should be prosecuted vigorously, I gladly take it on pro bona.

---

[1] Some of us protested these crimes at the time.

[2] Surely, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, the reverse being the case, ‘the West’ bearing a heavy moral responsibility to make amends for their previous criminal policy. I am also aware that I have greatly simplified the arguments here, but since the Stop the War/B Liar crowd deal exclusively in simplistic sloganizing I have lowered myself to their basic vocabulary. 

[3] Though Saddam of course had long since abandoned his right to the protection of such laws by committing a range of crimes against his neighbours and the people of Iraq.