• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

01/27/2010

The life of a former prime minister has its ups and downs. Tony Blair earns millions from speaking engagements and as a consultant, but he no longer looks as cheerful as he used to.

There is one blemish that overshadows everything else. During his 10 years as prime minister of the United Kingdom, the 56-year-old was accustomed to success. These days he is even serving as a special envoy to the Middle East. But he has never managed to escape the shadow of the Iraq debacle.

The Labour Party politician, who converted to Catholicism after leaving office, is considered a pious person. He recently said that his strong faith shaped important decisions during his tenure as prime minister. His words were well received by many Britons, but how is this consistent with the fact that a majority of his countrymen now consider him to be a liar?

One out of Four Britons Say Blair Should Be Tried for War Crimes

He is accused of plainly having sought an excuse to join then United States President George W. Bush in his campaign against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. Almost one out of four Britons even believes that Blair should be tried for war crimes.

This Friday, Blair will be called to testify before the Iraq Inquiry, the panel convened by current Prime Minister Gordon Brown to investigate the circumstances behind Britain's decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq. Blair's testimony will be broadcast on television, once again giving the nation the opportunity to look its former prime minister in the eye. The families of the 179 British soldiers who died in Iraq are also awaiting his testimony with great anticipation. Some will also attend the inquiry.

The five members of the inquiry have been given access to classified documents and, since November, have questioned dozens of politicians, civil servants and military officials. In many cases, these sessions seemed more like a fireside chat than an interview. None of the five panel members is an attorney, and none has a talent for asking probing questions. Nevertheless, the members of the panel did manage to uncover new information.

A Massive Lie

They will ask a number of key questions on Friday: Why was Blair so eager to support Bush in this war, even without backing of the United Nations? How did he influence his senior legal advisor, the attorney general, who initially viewed the invasion of Iraq as a breach of law? What factors led to the development of the dossier presented to the British public as justification for going to war, which was even criticized by Britain's MI6 intelligence service and turned out to be based on a massive lie: namely that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes? And how was it possible that the British were just as poorly prepared for the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow as their American allies?

The witnesses called to testify to date have shown varying degrees of candor. Alastair Campbell, once Blair's all-powerful communications director, said that he was "very, very proud" of the events surrounding the war, and that he had no regrets. Jonathan Powell, Blair's former chief of staff, didn't sound as convinced, telling the panel that no one had anticipated that al-Qaida would take advantage of the chaos in Iraq after the invasion. The many victims of suicide bombings were "a horrific thing," Powell conceded, adding: "It is very hard to live with."

Humanitarian Intervention

Blair liked deploying his military, sending British soldiers to Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and, finally, Afghanistan. He perceived "humanitarian intervention" as his duty, even elevating it to the status of an official doctrine. Like Bush, he too was repulsed by Saddam, and he was not hesitant to act on his aversion. According to some of the testimony before the inquiry, Blair was already determined to use force against Saddam a year prior to the invasion.

In April 2002, he met with Bush at the US president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where, according to the former British ambassador in Washington, the deal to attack was "signed in blood." Come what may, the former ambassador testified, Blair would stand by Bush, even if it involved military action. According to Campbell, after the Crawford meeting Blair sent several private letters to Bush, in which he repeatedly assured the president that Britain would support him, no matter what.

Jack Straw, the British foreign minister at the time, sensed what was going through Blair's mind. Ten days before the meeting in Crawford, he wrote to Blair, in a memorandum marked "secret and personal," that the invasion was legally questionable and would not be worthwhile.

Almost Unconditional Loyalty to Bush

When Straw testified before the inquiry last Thursday, he said that he felt "deep regret" in light of the many dead. "If I had refused that, the UK's participation in the military action would not in practice have been possible," he said.

Blair will probably never acknowledge so much culpability. He said in December that if he could start all over again, he wouldn't change a thing. He would attack Saddam again, he said, even if he knew that the Iraqi dictator was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction. In that case, Blair said, "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."

Blair was almost unconditionally loyal to Bush, a fact that his biographer Anthony Seldon holds against him. Seldon notes that Blair could easily have tied his support for the war to other demands, such as a comprehensive Middle East initiative. But he didn't do that.

The Iraq inquiry still has its work cut out for it. It will summon Blair's former chancellor of the exchequer in February or March -- Gordon Brown, who is now in the middle of an election campaign.

Brown says he has nothing to hide.