Blair Doubles Down: Even Preventive War is for Suckas, Part I

by Eric Martin

It is understandable, if often regrettable, that politicians are reluctant to admit mistakes while in office.  Such admissions can and would be used against the politician in question in subsequent campaigns, and could lower overall approval numbers and, thus, weaken that politician for the remainder of his or her term.  So admitting mistakes can have serious detrimental effects on the subject politician's career and ability to govern, and politicians are nothing if not career-minded (certainly not unique to politicians I should add). 

Once out of office, though, the refusal to countenance error is a slightly less excusable vanity.  At this juncture, the politician's political career is over and there is little but the judgment of history to contend with, and yet the politician's reticence does a supreme disservice to the historical record and its ability to inform posterity.  

Which brings us to Tony Blair, who jumped into the fray recently to defend his decision to support the invasion of Iraq despite recent findings that the famed "45 minutes until launch" WMD scare-words (the British version of Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud") were based on nothing more than the second hand, uncorroborated recollections of an Iraqi taxi driver predisposed to eavesdrop.  With the British evidence for WMD falling apart piece by piece, Blair refused an opportunity for contrition:

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]".

Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

He explained it was "the notion of him as a threat to the region" because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people.

At least he conceded that different arguments would have been needed.  While it is tempting to dismiss the substance of Blair's defense as an ex post facto attempt at damage control, it deserves to be rebutted because: (a) it might provide a glimpse at the real rationale to go to war; and/or (b) either way, the standard enunciated represents a radical policy - such that the attempt damage control, if that is in fact what it is, could lead to untold and widespread damage. 

Let's examine the various possibilities and their implications.

In his attempt to plug the leaks in his case, Blair first evokes decades-old incidents of Saddam's brutality in an effort to somehow add teeth to his charge that Saddam, a now admittedly boxed-in and weaponless dictator, represented a threat to the region circa 2003.  But the facts belie the charge.  As Blair concedes, Saddam had neither WMD nor ties to al-Qa eda - nor did Saddam have the inclination to launch a regional war nor the means to attempt such a move if the desire was present.  

Even if Saddam could launch a conventional war against a neighbor (a neighbor other than Iran I should say, as it's unlikely we would object to that eventuality), and Saddam initiated plans to do so, it would have made more strategic sense to dissuade him (remind him of the outcome of his last attempt in the early 90's) or simply repel his aggression as was done in the early 90's (possibly including regime change if Saddam was, in fact, a repeat offender in such a way).  There was no urgency to act in advance of an unlikely future event.

In short, Saddam without WMD and ties to al-Qaeda represented very little threat to the region (even with them, he wasn't much of a menace), and the threat he could pose was better met with deterrence and response - rather than a radical form of preventive war theory.  More on that radical new theory in a moment.

-----

Where Blair departs from the flimsy "still a threat despite not having the capacity to threaten" argument, he hints at a far more interesting notion of regional transformation/evolution.  

"This was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind. The threat to the region. Also the fact of how that region was going to change and how in the end it was going to evolve as a region and whilst he was there, I thought and actually still think, it would have been very difficult to have changed it in the right way."

Iraq is a country of significant strategic importance - not only for the vast oil reserves that sit beneath its surface, but for the oil that resides in neighboring countries as well.  There is little doubt that control of, or influence over, the evolution of Iraq and the region as a whole would be a valuable lever for the United States to have its hand on (with the UK offering useful suggestions, naturally).  It would be naive to suggest that wars are never fought over such access to resources and influence, and it would be grand ignorance to disregard history's litany of far less valuable economic/strategic casus belli.

But if that's the case, then drop the pretense of freedom and democracy, and let the liberal hawks know that they can get down from their aeries tucked away in the lofty cliffs atop the moral high ground. They've been had - made dupes and props to a more cynical if time-worn enterprise.  Let it be a learning experience that, even where they imagine noble and just causes advanced at the point of a bayonet, those in charge of the bayonets are not on the same page.  This matters in terms of outcomes.  A lot.

But if we grant a more charitable reading to Blair, for the sake of argument only, his evocation of regional evolution could be a reference to attempts to usher in democratic transformation in the region - thus vindicating the liberal hawks in intentions if not results.  That argument, too, fails under closer scrutiny however. 

If democratic reform was our overriding concern, why not pressure undemocratic allies to make such changes rather than invading a country and imposing our will therein?  But not only did we not put serious pressure on allies to reform, why turned a blind eye to violent crackdowns and other undemocratic actions.  Seems like an odd - and expensive - way to go about teaching the lessons of liberalism. But even if Blair was just the type of naif to buy-in to that rationale, the standard it ensrhines it beyond dangerous.

-----

Around the time of the invasion, and in the years since, there has been quite the controversy stewing in the foreign policy community regarding the standard for making war put forth under the Bush Doctrine.  While Bush tried to sell the war as a "preemptive" war, the imminence of threat requirement was lacking, and so it was classified as a "preventive war" instead - that is, lacking an imminent threat, the war was fought because of a distant, contingent and potential future threat.  And that was when the WMD/al-Qaeda threat was taken at face value for the sake of assessing the policy.

But with the WMD/al-Qaeda rationale now rendered hollow by history, and confirmed by Blair's admission, Blair further loosens the moorings of preemptive war, turning already abstract ethical arguments for war into a farce. 

According to Blair, invading Iraq was the right thing to do even if Saddam lacked WMD because of his vague status as a "threat" to the region.  But if criteria for deeming Saddam a threat were to be adopted and normalized, it is hard to imagine there being any scenario under which a given regime would not pass the test for constituting a threat.  What was unique about Saddam circa 2003, and could those traits provide enough differentiation to gerrymander a theory without it resembling a bill of attainder?

In the alternative, Blair is arguing that invading Iraq was justified because the US/UK deemed it strategically important to, through the application of massive, violent military force, guide the political evolution of the region to either control access to vital natural resources or, magnanimously, bolster political freedoms. 

Regardless, any of those justifications amount to a license to wage any war, as long as that war was: (a) against a target as threatening as a weaponless Saddam; (b) deemed by the US/UK to be in its/their strategic interest(s); or (c) deemed by the US/UK to be a worthwhile pursuit of novel theories of political tinkering for the benefit of the invaded population.  In other words, the new standard would be an evisceration of any standard at all.

We'd be better off if Blair would just say he's sorry.

Comments

[Model 62]

Devastating.

I'm betting Mr Blair would like to have this part back: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."

[Model 62]

Hit post too soon. The decision makers will cling to "We truly believed Saddam was a threat" no matter what documents pop up, 'cause otherwise, they're guilty of launching an illegal war.

[Jesurgislac]

I thought I'd already left this comment, but:

Tony Blair's political career is not over. He's only 56. There is neither law nor tradition in the UK that says once a person has been Prime Minister that's it, end of story: indeed, it's a long-standing tradition that a former Prime Minister will be granted a seat in the House of Lords to continue their political career from a different angle.

Not that I'm defending Blair's behavior in the slightest - I'm just saying: your comments here about

Once out of office, though, the refusal to countenance error is a slightly less excusable vanity. At this juncture, the politician's political career is over and there is little but the judgment of history to contend with, and yet the politician's reticence does a supreme disservice to the historical record and its ability to inform posterity.

certainly apply to George W. Bush, but not to Blair. Yet.

(Mind you, when Tony Blair converted to Catholicism, there was a joke running round about how long his first confession would take - Two days? two years? Until the priest burst into tears and asked him to stop? ...but the joke was usually "Two minutes: Blair doesn't believe he's ever done anything wrong.")

[Hartmut]

I thought he was aspiring to become pope Antonius the First ;-)
As an ex-Anglican him being married should not pose a problem.
Seriously, I doubt that Blair has a chance to become Prime Minister again (independent of his religious faith). I think the mere fact that he was 'Bush's poodle' should be enough to prevent that (I'd consider a return of Maggie more likely). On the other hand: I am not a Brit but my impression is that the British did not stop going to war over 'interests' because of moral qualms but because it was not feasible anymore (militarily and financially), at least if Britain did not act as junior partner of a superpower. Even the Falklands was possibly just a case of bad timing for the Argentinian junta (going in a few months later might have done the trick).

[Fred]

The weakness of Saddam at the time was temporary, caused by the sanctions and no-fly zones, etc. To leave Saddam in power was to commit to endless maintenance of these.

The sanctions were already falling apart, as the Euros and Russians were selling Saddam anything they could, and the corrupt oil-for-food program was subsidizing Saddam. The situation was unstable.

Since they knew from the experience of the first Gulf War that the whole thing would only take a few months, it seemed the prudent course. What has not been explained is why they ignored the warnings that Iraq would be hard to manage.

[nigel]

>>At least he conceded that different arguments would have been needed...<<

You're being way too kind to him.

To most of us Brits, his comment translates as: "I'd have come up with a different set of lies and half truths".

If you think I'm being ungenerous, read what his own DPP has to say about him:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8411326.stm

[Mike]

In other words, the new standard would be an evisceration of any standard at all.

As indeed it was and remains. This is why the standards laid out by Obama in Oslo -- but moreover any applications thereof during his time in office (specifically, hopefully particular cases where an argument could be constructed whereby force could be justified according to the Oslo Address, but U.S. leadership declines engagement, thereby rendering some life into the standard) are of critical importance.

[sanbikinoraion]

Seriously, I doubt that Blair has a chance to become Prime Minister again

Hartmut, you're correct here, but there is a very good chance that he will be made a Lord, perhaps even by the incoming Conservative government (though not for a few years I imagine).

[Richard T]

Your readers might like to have a look at the Chilcot enquiry into the origins of the British involvement in the war in Iraq.

The evidence presented so far is probably the basic cause of why Blair emerged (in a interview about his religious beliefs) to say what he did. He is due to go before them in the New Year and was smoked out by the Independent newspaper as intending to be interviewed in secret. This has largely been stamped upon.

What they have heard so far has not unequivocally confirmed that Blair promised full support to your President in 2002 but it is exposing the slip shod preparation for the war and the dishonesty of the Government's propaganda (word used advisedly). In particular it is clear that Blair had decided upon the end of war and the means were being manipulated to justify it. The hole he is in is that in shorthand, under the UK's laws, regime change without a UN resolution would have been an illegal war so the weapons of mass destruction were blown up into the causus belli and the Attorney General is reported to have been bullied into giving Britain's entry into the war his clearance.

In all of this, arguing his client's case with all the plausibilty a legal man could muster, Blair acted as the Barrister he is.

[kent]

I think Tony Blair has just admitted that he doesn't know the first thing about thinking. He starts with his conclusions and only then tries to look for reasons to reach the conclusions.

I suppose that's what "intelligence was fixed around the policy" always meant.

Absolutely disgusting. And apparently it's typical of our politicians on both sides of the pond. Cf. the American health care debate ... the Joe Lieberman edition being only the most recent example. The right is against it, whatever "it" may be, and they'll figure out their reasons later.

[Model 62]

The weakness of Saddam at the time was temporary, caused by the sanctions and no-fly zones, etc. To leave Saddam in power was to commit to endless maintenance of these.

That's a compelling argument, Fred. But it doesn't make the war legal.

[Eric Martin]

The weakness of Saddam at the time was temporary, caused by the sanctions and no-fly zones, etc. To leave Saddam in power was to commit to endless maintenance of these

But Saddam was easily deterrable regardless. War was unnecessary, even without sanctions.

[Eric Martin]

Fred: Why launch a war to prevent Saddam from acting in such a way that launching a war to counter him would be necessary at some point in the future?

In doing so, you basically make the worst case scenario a reality without giving better alternatives a chance.

If Saddam was dumb enough to launch an invasion of Kuwait again after getting so utterly demolished the last go around, we could simply reprise Gulf War I. But chances are pretty good that he would do no such thing, in which case, war averted entirely.

[Uncle Kvetch]

But chances are pretty good that he would do no such thing, in which case, war averted entirely.

Eric, I don't know why you would assume that Fred agrees with you that, all things being equal, averting war is a good thing. I think it's pretty evident at this point that most Americans either think war is really cool (as long as it happens over there someplace and our involvement is limited to putting stickers on our cars), or that war is a simply an inevitability like death and taxes -- it's a drag, but what are you going to do? If the Almighty didn't want us to take up the White Man's Burden spread the blessings of democracy he wouldn't have made us so totally awesome.

Those of us who believe that war is a fundamentally Bad Thing need to remind ourselves from time to time that we are essentially in the lunatic fringe of the American polity.

[Egypt Steve]

I know of a country that possesses nuclear weapons, used poison gas against the Kurds of Iraq, has invaded neighbors repeatedly, and ruled millions against their will for centuries. They even attacked the US capital and burned it to the ground. Oh, and they actually invented the "concentration camp."

The UK seems peaceful enough at present, but with this track record, how can we trust them? I say that we need regime change now.

[hairshirthedonist]

...even where they imagine nobel and just causes...

/spellcheck

If you don't accept the criticisms of preventive war, Fred's position makes sense. Since I do accept the criticisms preventive war, I strongly disagree with Fred's position. So what Uncle Kvetch said.

[Eric Martin]

even where they imagine nobel and just causes

Perhaps a serendipitous error considering recent awards.

Alas, the spellcheck is powerless against such clusters of letters as they, too, are words in our language.

But will fix now.

[Rob in CT]

Those of us who believe that war is a fundamentally Bad Thing need to remind ourselves from time to time that we are essentially in the lunatic fringe of the American polity

Sad, but true.

[MEW]

The weakness of Saddam at the time was temporary, caused by the sanctions and no-fly zones, etc. To leave Saddam in power was to commit to endless maintenance of these.

The sanctions were already falling apart, as the Euros and Russians were selling Saddam anything they could, and the corrupt oil-for-food program was subsidizing Saddam. The situation was unstable.

Where have I seen this before...Perhaps here.

"I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range"

Our hands were not tied, the atrocity of those sanctions not inevitable.

[Hartmut]

Egypt Steve, slight correction. The concentration camp was a Spanish invention (used on Cuba for a short time on a small scale), the Brits were just the first to scale it up and use it for strategic purposes (and not yet with murder as original intent). They made the idea popular.

[ajay]

Egypt Steve, another one: the British never used gas against the Kurds, or indeed anyone else in Iraq. Churchill thought that they should use tear gas, but his suggestion was never acted on.

You forgot to mention that not only does the UK have nuclear weapons, it actually holds the patent rights to the atom bomb.