Log In | Register
This analysis is set against the backdrop of;
- The carnage of the indiscriminate and callous bombing of the world Trade Centre (9/11) by alleged disciples of Osama-bin Laden and Sadam Hussein. Hayden et al, (2006, p. 32); Burke, (2003, p. 213)
- President Bush’s foreign policy objective of “the pre-emptive confronting of rogue nation-states that pose an imminent threat to the United States” Conley, (2005, p. 4)
- An Iraq where leaving Sadam in power after the Gulf war was seen as an unfinished job” PD, (1997, p. 625).
- A world where the daily life circumstances and plight of Iraqis were, and are sensationally making global headlines. Williams, (2008)
- A world where Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden;( perceived by the West as al Qaeda leader) were perceived in the West as perpetrators of global terrorism. Conley, (2005, p. 3).
- A world where by default rather than consent, America in particular and Britain in general have self-assumed the role of global vigilantes and policemen. Conley, (2005, p. 4)
Against this politically complex backdrop, Tony Blair; convinced that what he was doing was rights” led Britain to partnership America in invading Iraq. But was he right? Inspective of your political orientation and prejudices, an implicit inside into Tony Blair’s reasons to invade Iraq will only be gained with a subscription to the reality that Tony was, and is not only a man of his conviction, but more so, that while the Brits have ‘sight’, Blair had ‘vision.’ Watching rational human beings losing their wits in demonstrations against the war; with the media supplying enough and continuous volatile material to keep the protest going, I was compelled to ponder how many of the mob members had actually rationally questioned their personal and implicit motives for their participation?
Similarly, days before Tony Blair’s appearance before the inquiry committee to justify his decision to partnership George in the Iraq invasion, the British populace was engendered into hysteria by sensationalised media report; to the extent of redirecting people on where to buy tickets for the supposedly ‘war crime trial’. Needless to say Tony Blair’s robust defence of his actions subsequently stirred the gullible into rational consciousness. Days after Blair’s appearance before the inquiry committee; for the execution that never was, the British political sea seemed so calm, no one will think a mighty tempest had threatened to engulf all who had attempted to sail on it.
Now back to basics, was Blair right to invade Iraq? To say opinions are highly polarised will be a gross understatement. From human Rights campaigns, anti-war activism through mob-followers to those who believed that George Bush was manipulating Blair; everyone seemed to be convinced they could provide the most convincing perspective to account for Blair’s action. Now what exactly was Blair’s argument for the desert adventure?
"I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances when the threat was worse... I think we live in a completely new security environment today. I thought that then, I think that now.” Blair’s declared at the inquiry.
To date now, Blair ‘genuinely believes’ that the end justified the means. Set against the backdrop of 9-11, the July bombings in London, and the current nuclear tension in the Middle East, doesn’t Blair’s vision stir our hitherto short-sightedness?
My argument for Blair’s vision is founded on his very words; “What’s important is not to ask the March 2003 question, but to ask the 2010 question. Supposing we had backed off this military action, supposing we had left Saddam and his sons, who were going to follow him, in charge of Iraq – people who used chemical weapons, caused the death of over a million people The permutation in attempting to answer this question would be endless.”
While most arguments against the war are grounded on the status quo; and media-induced opinions, with hindsight (the chemical attack of the marsh people, the London Bombings, 9/11), what will be the presenting circumstance of world security if Sadam and his sons were significant players in contemporary world politics?
Was Blair a liar as many anti war campaigner’s claim?
On the presumption of innocence rather than guilt by probability, how can society convict Blair for seeking to pervert the course of justice? If Blair was a liar, then grievously has he held on to his lies, and grievously did Sadam suffer the consequence, but Blair is an honourable man. Honourably is he prepared to defend and die for his conviction and belief. As a defiant Tony Blair told the grieving families of British soldiers killed in Iraq; he could not apologise for the invasion because he believed “it was the right thing to do”; I understand for these families, it is a time of immense grief and anguish, but I can't say what I don't believe; I don't believe it was wrong to get rid of Saddam." Could ‘I don’t believe it was wrong to get rid of Sadam’ translate into a conspiracy hypothesis?
Conspiracy Theory – Blair’s Secret Agenda.
The principal arguments for the invasion of Iraq was supposedly Sadam’s elusive weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Radnedge, (2005, p. 5) and the “threats they posed to the world especially to Britain and America”, Hayden et al., (2006); Conley, (2005). Bearing in mind that with or without any circumstantial evidence about the existence of these weapons Britain and America were bent on the invasion irrespective, my conspiracy theory is premised on an invasion that was instigated by;
- The capitalist quest to access Iraq’s rich oil reserves. Williams, (2008, p. 3)
- The determination to avenge the callous atrocities of 9/11. Conley, (2005, p. 4)
- The need to complete the unfinished task of the Gulf War by eliminating Sadam Hussein. Radnedge, (2008, p. 4).
The Oil Conspiracy
Although the plight of ordinary Iraqis under a so-called “notorious criminal and murderous tyrant” Winnock, (1997, p. 577) constituted one of the primary charges against Sadam, the conspiracy theory will suggest that, under a world that “is essentially capitalist”, Bardhan, (2006, p. 1) Britain would never have invaded Iraq solely for the humanitarian reasons of alleviating the impoverishment or repression of Iraqis indigenes. Accused of activism, yet implicit about his conviction about the motives for Britain and America infringing the sovereignty of an independent state, Tony Ben for the antiwar coalition alleged during parliamentary debate that “oil not the poor Iraqis was the essence of the invasion.” Ben, (1997). My conspiracy theory for risking and sacrificing British and American lives in the invasion is primarily consensual with Tony Ben’s war-for- oil argument. From a legal perspective, the rationale underpinning the oil conspiracy hypothesis is based on the precedent set by British and American actions in Iran in 1951. In a similar circumstance, when Premier Mohamed Mossadegh of Iran’s decided to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; thereby threatening the latter’s economic interest in this rich resource, “the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a decisive role in engineering a coup that overthrew the Massadegh regime” Bennett, (1995, p. 283). Akin to Iraq which was invaded in violation of UN’s rejection, the coup ignored UN’s rejection. In the new oil agreement that followed, 40% of the shares were assigned to British petroleum and 40% to United States firms” Bennett, (1995, p. 283). From an economic and capitalist rather than a moral perspective, the necessity for the invasion could be argued on the grounds that Blair wanted Iraq’s oil and reconstruction contracts after the invasion.
Revenge Agenda
According to Halliday, (2002, p. 24), “the incredulity of the callous and indiscriminate bombing of the World Trade Centre was a global atrocity” Halliday. Yes, from a British perspective the globality of the bombing could be argued on the basis that innocent ‘Brits’ constituted part of the 9/11 global casualties. Circumstantially or just being scapegoat, with Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden consensually, judged and found guilty as either directly or indirectly responsible for the unscrupulous act that has partisanly been described by Burke, (2003, p. 213) as “wanton act of terrorism”, it would have defied political rationality if Britain and America responded passively. As befits a president whose domestic policies were increasingly judged as unpopular, coalescing with Britain to invade Iraq could be argued to constitute a timely diversion as well as a means of giving Blair’s premiership and the Bush president-ship the image of resoluteness when the securities of their states were endanger. There is plausible logic to use this argument to explain President Bush’s decision to articulate a new foreign policy from deterrent “to pre-emptively confronting rogue nation-states that pose an imminent threat to the United States; tyrannical regimes that constituted an ‘axis of evil’ stretching from Iraq, Iran and North Korea” Conley, (2005, P. 4). While it is irrefutable that America in particular and Britain generally were victims of 9/11, opinions are highly polarised as to whether invading Iraq was the most appropriate response or whether the invasion carried overtones of ego-aggrandisement for the British and American leaders. If this was not the case, then there is reason to question why, given that terrorism is “a multifaceted problem requiring a long-term solution and collaborations among governments worldwide” Hayden et al., (2006, p. xiii), Tony Blair single-mindedly decided to ally with Bush in the invasion at the “expense of alienating European allies like France, Germany and Russia” www.socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/cgi. Arguing from the economic and political perspective of the benefit to Britain of consulting with her European partner actions whose ramifications could be far-reaching, Tony Ben for the anti-war coalition argued that; “within the global system where Britain stands to gain more from a multilateral relationship with these countries rather than any unilateral liaison with America, invading Iraq will be “a gross economic miscalculation if not folly” PD, (1997, p. 577). If my conspiracy theory holds, then compared to the multilateral relationship, the unilateral liaison with Bush to avenge British loses in 9/11 bombing while simultaneously getting rid of Sadam (the primary obstacle to accessing Iraq’s oil) seemed more attractive. Within a global economy where Britain and America enviously wanted Iraq’s oil; and where an extremely nationalistic Sadam was flaunting their secret agenda, it could be logically argued that the events of 9/11 constituted a god-sent excuse for Britain and America to foster their neo-colonial and imperial campaign. While the hysteria of 9/11 reigned, “any excuse, was excuse-enough to justify an invasion irrespective.” Preston and Kite, (2006, p. 1) and Blair was not to be left out.
Blair and the unfinished Gulf Adventure
Many have suggested that Iraq would have been a much accommodating place if only the allies had gone all the way and eliminated Sadam during the Gulf War. Couple with his identification with Osama bin Laden and the atrocities of 9/11, including a catalogue of alleged gross human right violations in Iraq, there is plausible reason to infer that Britain had to go after him. The combination of these arguments posits the invasion necessary since in his own words Tony Blair declared, "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country." Grice, (2007).
While with hindsight Tony Blair maybe vilified for embarking on an invasion that subjectively seemed unnecessary, Williams, (2008, p. 2), it is worth remembering that all the British political parties through their leaders fully supported the invasion. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/21/iraq.iraq. Nonetheless, as for the argument that he led Britain into an unnecessary and costly invasion, some school of thoughts argue that Tony Blair’s decision to engage Britain in the invasion of Iraq might have been sympathetically received if the then Prime Minister had been transparent-enough to declare that “oil and maybe revenge for 9/11 rather than the elusive weapon of mass destruction instigated the invasion.” Radnedge, (2008, p. 4). While this argument may seem on the extreme, it is not inconceivable under globalisation where the capitalist ideology to exploit is the norm rather than the exception. Bardhan, (2006, p. 1). As precedent, Western nations have always exploited their colonies’ resources to sustain their industries; policies that are still being perpetrated either directly or indirectly especially by multinational corporations under globalisation. Thus Iraq is not an exception to this occurrence. For the anti-war campaigners, only Jose Lius Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain saw beyond the excuse of weapons of mass destruction when he asserted that, “The colonial invasion of Iraq and the ugliest of lies of the lie machine that propagated and justified these barbarous acts will forever remain among the greatest and unpardonable crimes against humanity." Hassan, (2005). Similarly, while the antiwar coalition made much of the undemocratic and almost Sadam-like policy approach of Tony Blair in seeming to decide what he thought good for Britain, they failed to realise that democracy can never be comprehensive. If every British citizen were allowed to decide on matters of foreign policy, there would be anarchy everywhere with the risk of antagonising everyone. Moreover, democracy could hardly be the panacea to all Iraq’s problems. The reality about invading Iraq is that while humanitarians, antiwar-coalitionists, and partisan politicians may vilify Tony Blair for despotically taking Britain into war, they overlook the implicit reality that by making Blair Prime Minister and supreme commander of armed forces, we democratically delegated our right of consent to him. Therefore, maybe with the conviction that he was serving our best interest and that of Britain he used the consent we bestowed on him to lead Britain to invade Iraq. In his own words Tony Blair declared, “I did what I thought right for my Country.” Grice, (2007). Yes, as befits Her Majesty’s high sea buccaneer, Tony Blair went all the way to plunder Iraqis oil and reconstruction contracts for the British. Akin to Tony Blair, my justification for the invasion is that, with time and the ever-worsening global thirst for cheap energy, the British may one day thank their access to cheap energy to the vision of Tony Blair. Moreover for the activists of the antiwar coalition like Tony Ben and Ann Clwyd, MP for Cyon Valley, who vehemently denounced the invasion as “an infringement of Iraq’s national sovereignty” Ben, and Clwyd, (1997, p. 578), they seemed to have overlooked the fact that Sadam never showed any respect for national sovereignty when he invaded Kuwait. Moreover, under our contemporary climate of globalisation, “the notion of sovereignty is perceived as an anachronism” McChesney, (1999).
The reality about the necessity of the Iraq invasion is that under a British leader whose “style was not to encourage his policy preferences to be questioned, or call for nuanced assessments of possible consequences”, Steel, (2008, p. 2), the implicit rationales underpinning his decisions will always be questmatics. Similarly, in the process of evaluating the necessity of Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, the complex interplay of political and economic interest will always be manipulated to take the appropriate form that serves the vested interests of the evaluators.
Selective Blame?
From another perspective, dare I dare asked what is it about Iraq that was so wrong; and so repugnant that the British society is prepared to almost unconditionally accept the continuous stream of bodies returning from Afghanistan; yet can’t bare the limited lost in Iraq? Similarly, pertaining to the seemingly unholy alliance or the, Blair-Bush conspiracy’, where is the rationale behind denouncing the indiscriminate cross-national ravages of 9-11, just to turn and accuse leaders of the victim-nations from adopting a pre-emptied foreign policy? Irrespective of whether they were right or not, ‘isn’t prevention better than cure?’ Should America and Britain have rested on their haunches and waited to be bombed again before they took action to protect their ‘living-dead?” In contemporary global politics, the concept of deterrent suggests that if you want peace you must prepare for war. Much better, if you want security; you must initiate pre-empted action to prevent the like of 9-11. To date, there is plausible reason to suggest that the relative stability enjoyed by global citizen has been derived from actions of the type of Blair and Bush in Iraq.
Before you accuse me of supporting the war, I should say I in no way clamour for the lost of innocent lives for economic reasons. Additionally, I do not subscribe to subjective hysteria engender by media socialisation whereby mob-rule becomes the dominant ideology in governance. In fact I remember reading some of the anti-war placards; ‘Blair dictator; Blair where is our democracy; Blair Blood on your Hands’ etc.) Accusing Blair of being a dictator; worse than Sadam Hussein, confirms the extremities of our ignorance about the minutia of democracy. First of all, except in a utopian world, democracy is never absolute. Indeed, by electing Blair as Prime Minister through a supposedly democratic ballot, the British delegated their powers to him to deputise on their behalf on matters including foreign policy decisions. Consequently, decisions taken by the Prime Minster can never be perceived as devoid of citizen’s consent. The inference is that if Blair took Britain to war, he did so with our consent and on our behalf. If he was wrong, we were wrong.
In a world where sovereignty was normative, openly declaring that Britain was invading Iraq for the oil would have instigated mass hysteria and cries of imperialism. However, using any other covert excuse to achieve the same end is what modern international relations and politics is all about; and Tony Blair was, and is a genius at this. Isn’t it surprising how little the British are thankful for the reconstruction contracts and oil that Britain is now harvesting from Iraq compared to the mass employment and economic afflictions sapping away the blood from the British economy? I know they say it takes a great man to say I am sorry; it would make a great nation for Britain to say ‘Tony Thank You for your Visionary.’ Compared to those who judge Tony Blair in abstentia, I was privileged to be invited to discuss issues of policies on Child Trafficking with him when he was Prime Minister. The critique that I am, I was amazed at his readiness to listen and learn from whomever and whenever the opportunity arose. Not only is the Blair I know very consultative, he is equally responsive. Most importantly, he is a man of CONVICTION and he will die defending his believes. His vision was to do what he thought and believed was right for Britain. Britain saw it differently. The conflict therefore was between Blair’s vision and the British short-sightedness. Now that he has led us into his visionary world, isn’t it time we accept our narrow-mindedness and joint the visionary train? If we can accept the bodies returning from a seemingly endless war ‘process’ in Afghanistan, why can’t we accept and accommodate the limited losses of the ‘event’ of the invasion of Iraq?
While many may judge me as partisan, I rather say that I am amongst the privileged view that is controversially rational-enough to resist media socialisation and to judge Blair’s policies from an objective perspective. How do you judge him?
Comments to Dr Ignatius Gwanmesia antichildtraffic@yahoo.co.uk Tel: 07951 622137 United Kingdom
Bibliography
Bardhan, P. (2006) Does Globalisation Help the World’s Poor? Washington: Scientific American Magazine.
Ben, T. (1997) In question to Fatchett, D.; Foreign and Commonwealth Office during Parliamentary debates on Iraq. Nov. 10th 1997. Parliamentary debates: Official report sixth series. London: The Stationery Office.
Bennett, L. (1995) International Organizations: Principles and Issues. London: Prentice-Hall International Ltd.
Burke, J. (2003) Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror. London: I.B Taurus and Co. Ltd.
Conley, R. S. (2005) Transforming the American Polity: The Presidency of George Bush and the War on Terrorism. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc
Halliday, F. (2002) Two Hours that Shook the World. London: Saqi Books
Hassan, G. (2005) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a premeditated murderous act of aggression. London: Online journal, Special Report.
Hayden, P. et al., (2006). America’s War on Terror. Cornwall: MPG Books LTD.
Grice, A. (2007) The Legacy: Tony Blair, Prime Minister, 1997-2007. London: The Independent
McChesney, R. W. (1999) Profit over People. Neo-liberalism and global order. London: Turnaround Publisher Services Ltd.
PD, (Parliamentary Debates )(1997) Official Report Sixth Series. Vol. 300. London: The Stationery Office.
Radnedge, A. (2008) As Bush boast, Brown is quiet. London: Metro. March, 19th 2008.
Williams, D. (2008) Iraq: The Calm before the Storm. New York: American Chronicle.
Winnock, D. (1997) Iraq in Parliamentary debates Official Reports Sixth Series. London: The Stationer Office.
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/21/iraq.iraq
www.socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/cgi,
