Last week Tony Blair appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry — a public hearing launched by Gordon Brown with the seemingly innocuous purpose of learning the lessons of the Iraq war. Is this a rare example of a party being transparent and turning a critical eye inward on itself — and doing it in front of rolling cameras unlike the U.S. Senate’s health care debate? Certainly not.
The protesters outside the inquiry held signs condemning Blair as a war criminal. A casket was carried by “pallbearers” with bloody hands wearing blood soaked Blair masks with his signature Cheshire cat smile set in ghoulish proportions. Since it is only an inquiry and not a war crimes trial, to these folks the Chilcot Inquiry is a political “white wash.”
Inside Blair comported himself admirably in the dock. The panel pursued the narrative of an “illegal rush to war” to a clue and Blair answered with type of Churchillean clarity that has distinguished him amongst his Labour Party peers.
It was unfortunate that Blair’s performance happened on a Friday — the best day in politics when you want to limit public attention. One would guess the choice of date was Blair’s, or at least that he had input. It was only fitting that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s politics of the press releases was checked-mated.
It is the responsibility of this week’s news cycle to reflect on what Blair’s words and the process that he passed through.
On the matter of war — and why we fight — the difference between Blair and Thatcher, and Blair and Bush are of degree and not kind. I don’t know if Blair has ever read Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech given at Fulton Missouri, but Sir Winston’s Atlanticist principles and strategic grammar are within Blair’s political DNA on issues of War and Peace. The real differences between Blair and the above-mentioned company are differences that stop at the waters-edge.
For Blair, 9/11 changed the “calculus of risk” with regards to Iraq. Containment was no longer a prudent policy in the age of “unrepresentative extremism” with state actors possessing WMD and a demonstrated willingness to use non-state actors as warfare proxies. What checks our enemies is not their will, but the deadly means at their disposal. They haven’t done it because they don’t have it yet.
And according to Blair, if you think it’s right, you do it right. When it came to defense, the U.K. would not be free riders but contribute substantially. On Friday, Blair took credit for and proudly defended his decision to invade Iraq, to topple Saddam’s sadistic regime. Pol Pot died in his bed of old age with the blood of millions on his hands. Saddam died at the end of hangman’s noose, not by our hands but by those of a liberated Iraqi people and a new government dealing with its own totalitarian garbage in a liberal, constitutional way.
There are couple additional lessons that the former Prime-minster should have delivered:
The first would have been directed at the Inquiry. Wars are not fought, and security is not won, in forums of this kind. The legalistic lens purports to see the past with absolute clarity. However, this is not the world we live — and have no choice but to act — in. Unless we recognize the difference, this inquiry will not make us smarter and stronger, but it will have a chilling effect on the type of energetic and principled defense that our civilization needs. Historical inquiries of this kind are not about bringing clarity to the past; they are about controlling the future. Mr. Cameron, the Inquiry is being conducted with you in mind. Pay them no mind.
The second would have been directed at the Tories. That this is being done by Blair’s own party is not without importance. Blair’s battle with those who threaten our civilization’s values is not Labour’s problem going into the election. Blair made it clear that those who distance themselves from America would find that it’s a “long road back.” The same can be said of Labour distancing themselves from Blair. This show trial purge of the Tories along with Gordon Brown’s best efforts to inadequately fund U.K. troops to carry out their mission will mark Labour’s return to the political wilderness.
Lastly, President Obama has made the distinction between wars of necessity, like Afghanistan, and wars of choice, like Iraq. Yes, we chose to go war with Iraq, but it is worth remembering that Saddam had a say in the matter.
Had Saddam opened himself up to inspection, he might be alive today and the Iraqi people would be less free. Yes, the intelligence we had going into Iraq was faulty. But Saddam lied and we called his bluff, in the process liberating a nation. The lesson that despots must learn from Chilcot: if you aren’t sitting on a pile of WMDs, let the inspectors in.
