open Democracy News Analysis - Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order., - Comments

Joeanna Nee on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Joeanna Nee — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:02:54 +0000

Your welcome tom, glad I could make somebody smile! :)

Tom Freeman on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Tom Freeman — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:36:46 +0000

Clare Short (UK cabinet minister who resigned over Iraq) reviewed ‘30 Days: a month at the heart of Blair's war’ by Peter Stothard (former editor of the Times who had close access to Blair for a while). She writes: “We are told that, in September 2002, Blair's analysis of relations between Washington, London and Baghdad rested on six essential principles to which Blair and his aides would regularly return: 1) Saddam Hussein's past aggression and present support for terrorism made him a clear threat; 2) the US and Britain were among his enemies; 3) the people of the US post-11 September would support a war on Iraq; 4) the war would happen whatever any other country did; 5) the people of Britain and the rest of the world would want action through the UN; 6) it would be more damaging to international peace and security if the US acted alone. The logic of these points is clear. They are hardly profound, but they explain why we went to war. It boils down to the view that the US would inevitably go to war in Iraq and, for some unexplained reasons, it was considered dangerous for America to go it alone; therefore the UN route should be tried, but we would go with the US whatever.” http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4647_132/ai_106059040 I think points 2 and 3 were clearly right, 4 is just about arguable but I really doubt that Blair could have stopped Bush, and 5 was true. Point 1 was – shall we say – slightly overstated, but it’s beside the point to the logic of the argument, that the war was unstoppable and that it would be better for the UWS not to act alone. I don’t know if Stothard’s description of Blair’s thinking is accurate, and for my money this isn’t really a good argument for going to war, but I suspect there may be truth in the idea that the US administration would have become even more unilateralist and contemptuous of the rest of the world/the UN if not for good ol’ Tony, proving that some foreigners are good guys too. Any thoughts anyone? Also, here’s an interesting piece by Adam Garfinkle, arguing against the (as he sees it) common view that foreign policy decisions are only ever made for one single reason, and that foreign policy rationale is stable over time. He thinks that in the case of any big decision, there is generally a confluence of motives: http://www.policyreview.org/aug03/garfinkle.html (BTW nice thread Brolly. And Joeanna, the image of Blair as Hugh Grant playing Schwartzenegger is going to keep me smiling for a while! – “I’ll, y’know, be back”)

Matt Murrell on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Matt Murrell — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:20:54 +0000

Brolly, Thanks for the info. The problem is that Blair views public services as commodities, he talks about people "shopping around" for schools and hospitals, which is great if you have the money for it. What's needed is increased investment, and measures to ensure that the money is spent more efficiently. That has to involve some measure of decentralisation, but with strict regulatory controls. The only role for the private sector is in providing supplies, for-profit companies have little if any place in the running of hospitals. Same goes for schools as well. I shudder to think what will happen if the Tories get back in. We seem to be in danger of drifting off-topic...

brolly3 on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

brolly3 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:06:47 +0000

Matt Murrell, My wife, who was on an 'Access to Higher Education -Health Care' course earlier this year prior to studying for a Degree, had to do a project on a topic of her related to the NHS. She chose to focus on Choice. After reviewing her work I came to the conclusion that much of what is being proposed and some of what is being implemented on this aspect,is part of a mirage that was probably created by some of Blair's think tank people, who have no real experience of medical issues. What they think constitutes choice is is far from it in reality. I will quote from some of her notes and sources to make the point. This is what the BMA has to say: "Current policy seems to be primarily aimed at providers rather than patients and aims to create a sharper environment in which providers compete for patients driven by a belief this will drive standards up and waiting lists down. Choice is also predicated on the introduction of a market in healthcare. Given the lack of evidence that competition increases quality, the BMA is not convinced that the market road is the best route to make the health service more responsive. In any market there will be winners and losers and the BMA is deeply concerned that the NHS is being set up to lose, about the very real threat of destabilising NHS institutions and the closure of much needed services. The BMA believes that choice and capacity must be considered hand in hand. At present, increasing capacity seems to be synonymous with commissioning private sector involvement. The BMA wishes to see investment to create additional capacity in the NHS. The BMA is very concerned that current choice policy will diminish opportunities to take a population-wide view of healthcare provision and increase fragmentation. Surveys consistently show that patients value continuity in healthcare ; research consistently shows that markets fragment it. You have no doubt heard of the Wanless Report, whihc was commissioned by the Government. I quote one of its conclusions: "Choice required spare capacity, and there was precious little of that in the NHS. What people most wanted, Wanless argued, was access, not choice. A major feature of 'Choice in ther NHS', which was proudly announced by John Reid, when he was Health Secretary, is the 'Choose and Book System', which has the right connotation of consumer empowerment that Blair is so anxious to create. I should mention that the 'Choose and Book' system realtes to referrals from GP's to Consultants and elective but not emergency surgery. 'CHOOSE AND BOOK and INFORMATION AND ADVICE THE PATIENT NEEDS'. At first impression ‘Choose and Book’ sounds like an excellent innovation, as the aim is to accommodate the patient’s convenience and to book an appointment as soon as the GP has decided upon a referral. In fact, the Choose and Book computer system being installed in GP’s practices will make it theoretically possible for the patient to leave the GP’s surgery with an appointment made. Upon further consideration, however, problems arise. The patient is supposed to be getting a choice of up to four hospitals. It is expected that the patient will want to know about the relative merits of these hospitals and probably the reputation of the Consultant who they will see. It is here that the notion of choice, in this context, begins to look a bit threadbare. It is most likely that the patient will incline to the best star rated hospital with the probable qualification that it is not the furthest in distance. These two conditions may not be compatible. As for the Consultant, the patient is more than likely going to seek the advice of the GP. Here, it is unlikely that the GP will have personal knowledge of all the Consultants of the four hospitals and the knowledge he or she does have, will be anecdotal to some extent anyway. GP’s are expected to spend only seven and a half minutes on average with each patient and one can imagine them not wanting to go into too much searching on their computers for statistical information on relative hospital departmental performances and Consultant’s performance scores, with some doubts as to whether these latter will be available and how far they will be qualified if available.No dount some interpretation of the findings will be expecteed where it is not clear. To deal with the dilemma this will pose for GP’s, between over running their standard time with a patient and giving them some sort of short shrift in advice, the Department of Health are intending to provide patient care advisors for the patient, and that they, rather than the GP, will deal with the matter of advice. These people will not be Doctors and will not normally be at the surgery but at the end of a telephone line somewhere. As to how quickly they will respond to a telephone call and the quality of the advice, is another question. So already a contradiction has arisen between the speed the system is supposed to achieve and the practicalities of the situation. How this will be resolved is anyone’s guess. Where will the health care advisors get their information with which to advise the patient, one might ask. Presumably they will comb databases and statistical information available and then express an opinion. This will be largely based on figures and their interpretations of them or some sort of league tables. It would also follow that the recommendations regarding the choice of Consultant will not be from any confidential NHS reports as this is still a grey area as to how much will be revealed. After a time they too will probably come to rely on anecdotal information as much as anything else. As with all performance and league tables, these change with time and sometimes quite quickly. One can imagine a Consultant having more very ill patients than some other Consultant, through bad luck and that will increase his mortality figures and give him a poorer outcome record. How will this affect the advice given by GP’s and especially the health care advisors, assuming they are allowed to give such information. Will they be candid with patients and direct them away from the hospitals and Consultants who have some recent blemishes or will they be concerned not to damage a hospital that might have had an unfortunate run of luck. Further difficulties remain. While there is considerable performance information on each Hospital Trust, the star rating is made in respect of all the hospitals within a Trust and not for each one separately. There are a substantial number of elements that go to make up the basis for the award of stars and these would not be easily understood by the public or they could well be misinterpreted as to their significance. There are four star rating, from zero to three, and in using the analogy of hotels to gain some idea of standard, the public could well be swayed against those hospitals with no or low stars. They are not to know that a financial deficit in one year could influence the rating rather than just poor comparative performance in surgical outcomes or treatments. The word going about is that Tony Blair wants to imbed the changes in the direction of providing a health servce that is supposed to resemble a super market for choice and availablity and is rushng to do so. He wants the changes to be irreversable ( no doubt to preserve his legacy and place in history). It is my ernest hope that his ill thought out iniaitves fail to be adopted and that he is hit by the proverbial bus as soon than later to save us from his madness, Message was edited by: brolly3

brolly3 on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

brolly3 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:22:55 +0000

henry_hart, Big man, I did lighten up but you ignored my comments. You haven't told us why you are confining yourself to one liners these days. Has your neocon well run dry? Perhaps even you have seen through the screen that Fox News puts between the American people and reality. Maybe your coming of age.

brolly3 on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

brolly3 — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:29:12 +0000

henry_hart, Once again you've misread or misunderstood what I've posted but that's no surprise. The inquest is about how the UK came to be involved in the war with Iraq and Blair's part in it. Most of us realize only too well that this vainglorious character is still with us. Henry, what's wrong with you these days. No longer do we get the lengthy posts of the past. All you seem to manage are occassional one liners. Have some of us exorcised the dreadful neoconservative demons that infected you? Have you finally recognized what a crass idiot your President is and what folly it was to invade Iraq on a pretext that was soon exposed and which has left the US looking incompetent, militarily overstretched and unable to sensibly pursue any more neocon dreams.

Joeanna Nee on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Joeanna Nee — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:54:04 +0000

Brolly, You must be tired! I wouldnt say adoring eyes for Blair, alot of us are like who are you besides a smiling idiot? Margaret Thatcher seemed so imposing, but she seemed like she was a hard worker. Blair always made me think of Hugh Grant running for Parliment-like Shwartznegger in California. Besides the media glitz...what are they doing? Go get some rest. Henry, Tim and Mike are back and should become quite lively...oh and neocynic. Should be some interesting points abounding!

brolly3 on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

brolly3 — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:36:09 +0000

The contributions this topic has so far received have, for a change, moved the focus away from George W.Bush and on to Blair's role in the war with Iraq. This is not to say that the interaction between Blair and Bush has been ignored. Matt Murrell, You have given Joeanne a very good account of Blair's involvement with New Labour and his ostensible motives for joining the US in the war. [“Being as he was an “ideological vacuum”, Blair led the Labour Party based largely on focus groups. His policies were driven not by any real socialist feeling, but by a desire to get and stay in power. They therefore tended to be inoffensive, media-friendly, and designed to appeal to Daily Mail readers. His evangelicalism (he had once considered becoming a priest) allowed him to sell these policies with conviction”.] This is a very good description of his main motive, which was, as you say, to stay in power. I believe that he has finally realized how unpopular he has become and this together with his health problems have led him to set a time frame in which to stand down. It looks as if he is desperate to leave something more than the catastrophic decision to go to war as a legacy and hence the tales we have recently kept hearing of him being like ‘an old man in a hurry’ to implement ‘modernization and choice’ in the public services. Not that I personally am in favour of half baked initiatives and more involvement of the private sector in public services. Randon, [“The man is obsessed with being remembered as a great leader and ironically it’s usually those kinds of leaders who make the biggest balls up (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, every North Korean leader ever etc., all of them egotistical self egrandising turds)” “The US decison was influenced by the neo-conservative domination of the Whitehouse. More accurately the decision was made by them. As well as the standard oil and cultural/military hegemony arguments” “Neoconservatism relies on a primordialist view of human relations which was 'recently' put into a the 'primordialist handbook for the emerging world' commonly known as Huntingdons 'Clash of Civilisations'. They need a war to justify their beliefs, and to prove how right they were to everybody, and so they started one; the war on terror”.] I particularly extracted the above statements from your post because I think that it just about covers the motives for the war and the aspect of Blair’s personality that is least appealing and the most dangerous. Joeanne Nee, I believe that Matt Murrell and Randon have given you a very good grounding on the subject of Master Blair. No doubt you will now be able to look at him with less adoring eyes than some of your compatriots, who have little idea how so many Brits really feel about Blair. They usually don’t want to believe it. Finally, having reread my opening post on this topic, I realize just how tired I was when I wrote it, as the typographical errors stand out a mile.

henry_hart_1 on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

henry_hart_1 — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:52:06 +0000

Am I the only one who thinks that requesting an "inquest" of Tony Blair is a bit, er, premature?;)

Matt Murrell on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Matt Murrell — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:50:04 +0000

I don't think that European opposition could have stopped the US going to war, but perhaps it might have changed the nature of the following occupation. It's difficult to say. Blair was losing popularity beforehand, his government was seen as too pre-occupied with the media, but Iraq saw his rating hit new lows. I don't think it was purely the fact of invading Iraq that so many people opposed, more the way it was done. Most of the UK population would have supported a war if it had UN approval - hence Blair and Bush's pretence of going through the Security Council, before deciding to go in regardless. There was a strong humanitarian reason to go into Iraq, sadly our countries, with their long history of supporting dictators like Saddam, were unable to make it. Instead we got inflated rumours of Iraq being a threat to the rest of the world. He then went to war, despite about 60% of the population opposing it. The failure to discover any real WMD's reduced Blair's credibility to almost nothing. The Blair premiership can be seen as having two phases: Pre – 9/11 – Blair cannot be thought of as a real socialist, at best he is ideologically neutral. His father had hoped to stand as a Conservative MP, and it’s only Tony’s relationship with Cherie that drew him into the Labour Party. It is this “lack of baggage” that some regard as his greatest asset. He was able to look at the party critically, and discard what needed to be discarded in order to win support. Only Blair would have been able to remove Clause IV (which committed Labour to the “common ownership of the means of production”). He appealed not to Labour’s core supporters, but to the swing voters who might otherwise have been put off of Labour’s socialism. Being as he was an “ideological vacuum”, Blair led the Labour Party based largely on focus groups. His policies were driven not by any real socialist feeling, but by a desire to get and stay in power. They therefore tended to be inoffensive, media-friendly, and designed to appeal to Daily Mail readers. His evangelicalism (he had once considered becoming a priest) allowed him to sell these policies with conviction. However, his style of leadership did cause problems. He has never been popular with the Labour Party, which may explain why power has become so centralised under Blair. His conviction in the justness of what he does means that he rarely takes criticism or dissent well. The isolation from his own party led to the creation of what some have termed the New Labour cabal, where Blair is surrounded by a number of unelected special advisors (normally old acquaintances of his) and rarely allows much party participation in policy decisions. The desire to be media friendly also led to disillusionment with the public, who came to associate New Labour with “Spin”, with worrying about the message rather than content. His continuation of Thatcher’s privatisation of public services also caused conflict. Blair was also involved on the world stage in his early years of power. He saw Britain as being heavily involved in international affairs, such as the EU. British forces were sent into combat three times – the 1998 bombing of Iraq, Kosovo in 1999, and then Sierra Leone in 2000. John Kampfner’s book Blair’s Wars talk about the moment Blair visited a refugee camp after the Kosovo campaign as the moment he signed up to the idea of humanitarian intervention. Here his religion, his political ambition, and his interest in international affairs crystallised. Post – 9/11 – Blair was one of the first world leaders to react to the attacks in New York. In his speech to the TUC in Brighton that day he talked about this new terrorism being the greatest threat faced in our day. He saw the international community joining together to defeat radical Islam and decided to throw himself into the middle of it. He believed that the best place for Britain was as the bridge between Europe and the US. Here we could command influence over international events. The ‘War on Terror’ would give something New Labour had always worried about lacking: a strong political narrative. A unifying idea that would link everything he had worked for and secure his legacy. What he failed to realise was Bush’s disregard for the international community and the willingness to go it alone. Blair’s vision of a strong United Nations working to eradicate terrorism had no place in the plans of the Bush Administration, who favoured unilateralism. Blair went along with US plans for war, convinced that he could win people over to this cause just as he had won them over to New Labour. Some good books on Blair: The Rivals - James Naughtie Blair's Wars - John Kampfner Pretty Straight Guys - Nick Cohen Blair - Anthony Seldon The Point of Departure - Robin Cook Captive State - George Monbiot Web of Deceit - Mark Curtis Message was edited by: Matt Murrell

Joeanna Nee on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Joeanna Nee — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:59:54 +0000

ok, so Europe being bigger than us (damn Europeans and their fattening delicious foods which I wont allow myself to eat, damn baby weight-see what you've done?) and they were doing massive protests against Bush, as were alot -please dont correct my grammar...it is american slang and a very bad habit and I will get all self-concious-of Americans...do you think that Bush wouldnt have done it? I believe Bush was right in countering Afghanistan, but there is where it should have stopped. It was UN inspectors that were denied entry, it should have been a global solution. After all, if he had wmd's it would have affected Europe just as much. Or maybe, he would have been seen as the Jack ass he is today (Bush). Instead of our President shoring up our home defenses, we are spread thin on foreign soil. Do you think that Blair could have said to Bush, you need to have a concrete plan to get out or we are out of here? And would that have helped him in his popularity? I mean, alot(damn now I am self conscious) of Americans were glad that the Brits stood with us. Many Americans now absolutely hate France. Many vets sent their medals back to France that were given to them in WW2 just because they didnt stand beside us. Now, I could see if it was protests against what we did to Afghanistan, but it seems foolish when it comes to Iraq. Now, I could be way off base, but it was a UN resolution to use UN inspectors which should equal a UN decision on how it wants to proceed. Now, Blair was exceedingly well liked before Iraq, right? Then what kind of legacy would he be looking for? There will only be one Churchill, and hopefully the last reason why he has a legacy. Does Thatcher have a legacy besides being the most homely woman I have ever seen?

Matt Murrell on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Matt Murrell — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:34:33 +0000

Joeanna, Atlanticism refers to the "close relationship" between the UK and US. Blair ascribes to the school of thought that sees this relationship as key to Britain's role in world affairs. We're no longer the biggest kids on the block (damn de-colonialism!) but if we ally ourselves with the new kid... He also felt that it was important to maintain the UN / international community, which is why he tried to act as a bridge between the US and Europe over Iraq. A lot* of people agree with you that Blair should have been more critical. (* There is no such word as "alot", the word "allot" refers to the allocation of items - as a certain poster not on this thread doesn't seem to realise) Randon points out that Blair is desperate for a legacy. When he first came to office (Blair, not Randon) many thought that increasing ties with Europe would be that legacy. His support for the US over Iraq means that he's no longer a credible figure in Europe any more. Hence his desperation to be remembered for anything other than Iraq, and his reluctance to stand down as PM. I've never seen 'The Lifestyles...', but I'd assume it's a different Robin Cook. Our one was Foreign Secretary until 2001. He kept in contact with key figures in the lead up to war, and resigned from the Cabinet over Iraq. Many thought he would become a key figure in the post-Blair government, but he passed away in August. A BBC obiturary can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4127676.stm

Joeanna Nee on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Joeanna Nee — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:46:04 +0000

Fist, please explain atlantacism. Second, please tell me that is not Robin cook from "the lifestyles of the rich and fabulous. Third, why would he be so concerned about the rest of the world being against America. Clearly, Bush was wrong. Maybe, if he said so and we were the only ones, more Americans would have bitched. Alot of Americans really dont care for the french and the way they kind of snub us. So, are we going to delve into the psychology of both Blair and Bush or just Blair? Reagan and Thatcher were tight, do you believe he was trying to create that type of atmosphere. Maggie made the news alot over here.

Randon on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Randon — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:03:15 +0000

For Blair I think the main things that affected his decision was his desire to create a personal legacy in British politics and secondly, obviously, the US influence. All 'great' leaders in Blairs book have fought in some war, from Churchill in WW2 to Thatchers invasion of the Falklands (Malvina's, for the Argentines out there), and long before that. The man is obsessed with being remembered as a great leader and ironically its usually those kinds of leaders who make the biggest balls up (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, every North Korean leader ever etc., all of them egotistical self egrandising turds) Take Churchill as an example, he had a terrible blighted career and was made PM really because no one else wanted the job, or to be remembered as the guy who lost Western Europe to Hitler. What a turn around in fortune he had! From a washed up aging MP and former Naval man to being voted the greatest ever Britain sixty years later. Thats what Tony wants in fifty or a hundred years time, obviously he (if he's still around by some genetic modification miracle) will be sorely dissapopinted. He should have concentrated more on Palestine and not been so naive to trust Bush at his word that it'll be sorted after Iraq. The movements from Gaza will be the only ones and now Israel will push to secure the West Bank. Some success story that one isn't. 2 million Palestinians crammed into a space not much bigger than my front porch. The US decison was influenced by the neo-conservative domination of the Whitehouse. More accurately the decision was made by them. As well as the standard oil and cultural/military hegemony arguments. Neoconservatism relies on a primordialist view of human relations which was 'recently' put into a the 'primordialist handbook for the emerging world' commonly known as Huntingdons 'Clash of Civilisations'. They need a war to justify their beliefs, and to prove how right they were to everybody, and so they started one; the war on terror. Then they discovered they could actually clean up alot of unfinished business along the way, so despite the FACT Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, short of Sadam shooting them all in his secularist state, they attached the tag and sent in the troops. A lot of this they may be conciously aware of themselves, a lot of it they might actually totally believe and therfore the decisions they make will be subconciously affected by their particular world view. In this case a 'primordialist' as opposed to a 'social constructivism' world view.

Matt Murrell on "Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order."

Matt Murrell — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:36:00 +0000

Why did he do it? From John Kampfners 'Blair's Wars': "His was a combination of self-confidence and fear, of Atlanticism, evangelism, Gladstonian idealism, pursued when necessary through murky means. His was a combination of naivety and hubris." This tallies with the picture of Blair painted by Robin Cook's diaries. He believes in the threat from terrorists and is willing to use military action against them. As for Iraq, he knew that the US was going ahead regardless and chose to go along with them in order to try and avoid a split between the US and the world. He thought that he could swing Europe and the British public on the issue. He clearly felt that the invasion would go well. By the time he realised how isolated they were he was too involved to back out, nor did he really want to. He clearly believed it was the right thing to do. He believes. That's the problem.

Blair has played a big part in the chaos in Iraq. An Inquest is in order.,

brolly3 — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:12:18 +0000

I proprosed a new thread and I think that it should kick off with an Inquest style inquiry as to what his motives were and also the interaction with Bush and its effects. I am firmly of the belief that when we look into a leaders actions and policy decisions, we should attempt to analyse his psychological condition, even if we can only only glean some limited information on this from searching the web,etc., The unconscious motivation of the chief protagonsists of the Iraq war are hardly mentioned. Too much is taken at face value or what the politicians advance as their reasons. We need to know a bit more abut what makes them tick as individuals in order to shine some light on the influences on their decisions that we don't normally discuss. As it is very late I sahll stand aside and elt someone lead off.