Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Fisking Blair’s chapter on Iraq

Our ex-prime minister is still the best Bliar in the business.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 01 September 2010 3:36

I'm knackered and sleepy, hungry from all the Ramadan fasting and -- officially -- on vacation. But I couldn't go to bed without commenting on Tony Blair's new book, A Journey, extracts of which have been published online here.

Much of the instant attention from the chattering classes in the Westminster village has been on the Gordon Brown (GB) chapter, and on Martin Kettle's pre-publication interview with Tony Blair (TB) in the Guardian, in which the latter says he always believed GB would be a "disaster" as prime minister.

But for me, it's the extracts from the Iraq chapter that caught my sleepy eye (and not just because A Journey is being published on the day after the last US combat troops left that war-torn country). TB continues to distort, evade, pretend and mislead on the issue of Iraq. He is the ultimate Bliar -- and so I couldn't help but fisk the available extracts from his Iraq chapter.

I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded, and that too is part of the responsibility.

Never did you guess? But why did you have to "guess"? Six of the country's top academic experts on Iraq and international security warned TB, at a face-to-face meeting in November 2002, that the consequences of an invasion could be catastrophic.

Cambridge University's George Joffe, one of the six invited to Downing Street, got the impression of "someone with a very shallow mind, who's not interested in issues other than the personalities of the top people, no interest in social forces, political trends, etc". Meanwhile, the Joint Intelligence Committee warned TB in February 2003 that the threat from al-Qaeda "would be heightened by military action against Iraq".

Why should Saddam keep the inspectors out for so long when he had nothing to hide?

TB knows perfectly well that Saddam Hussein did not "keep the inspectors out", and nor did he expel them, as TB claimed in the run-up to war in early 2003. The truth is that the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 on the orders of the chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler, in anticipation of the US/UK air attack on Baghdad.

Jane Arraf's CNN report, filed on 16 December 1998, stated: "This is the second time in a month that Unscom has pulled out in the face of a possible US-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at UN headquarters after a pre-dawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad," said the Washington Post on 18 December 1998.

While it is true that relations between the Saddam regime and the UN weapons inspectors had already broken down, TB glosses over the fact that the inspection teams had been infiltrated by US and UK intelligence agencies and how, in the words of the former inspector and hawk-turned-dove Scott Ritter, "Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis."

Even when he let them in, why did he obstruct them?

Obstruct them? That wasn't the view of Hans Blix, the top UN weapons inspector in Iraq, or Mohammed ElBaradei, the then head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Verifying Iraqi disarmament, said Blix on 7 March 2003, "will not take years, nor weeks, but months". ElBaradei offered a less specific forecast but nonetheless pointed out that "the recently increased level of Iraqi co-operation should enable us in the near future to provide the Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq nuclear-related capabilities".

Why bring war upon his country to protect a myth?

Saddam did not "bring war upon his country" -- the US and the UK invaded Iraq, in defiance of international law. And the Iraqi dictator, as we now know, made several desperate, last-ditch attempts to avoid war, including the use of back-channel approaches to (of all people!) Richard Perle.

The caveats entered by Dr Kay were largely overlooked, including his assertion that Saddam was possibly a greater threat than we had known, a remark seen at the time as inexplicable, given the primary finding.

Dr David Kay? TB looks for support from a man who, as the Guardian's Julian Borger once pointed out, was far from impartial: "Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action."

The second report from Charles Duelfer was not published until September 2004. It received far less attention, yet this was the complete analysis

Yes, and the complete analysis from Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group concluded that, at most, Saddam's Iraq had been engaged in "WMD-related programme activities". Get that, Tone? Not WMDs. Not even WMD programmes. But "WMD-related programme activities", whatever they happen to be. I wonder: can a WMD-related programme activity be activated within 45 minutes of an order to do so?

The constraint became even tougher when revelations from Saddam's son-in-law about his continuing interest in development of WMDs were broadcast to the world in 1996.

TB, like George Bush, trumpeted the alleged "revelations" from Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in the run-up to war as well (for example, in a speech to the Commons in February 2003). But TB conveniently omits to mention here what Kamal told UN weapons inspectors in 1995, while being debriefed in Jordan (and first reported in Newsweek on 24 February 2003, three weeks before the invasion): "All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear -- were destroyed."

This conclusion on nuclear weapons was actually endorsed by the Butler report of July 2004, though that was written prior to the full ISG report of September 2004. The Butler report concluded . . .

TB chooses to quote from the Butler report selectively. Surprise, surprise! No mention from our former PM of the report's conclusions that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear", and that judgements had stretched available intelligence "to the outer limits". No mention of the view, expressed by Lord Butler himself in the House of Lords, in February 2007, that TB was, at the very minimum, "disingenuous" about the Iraqi "threat".

As Saddam came to power in 1979, Iraq was richer than either Portugal or Malaysia. By 2003, 60 per cent of the population was dependent on food aid.

No mention here of the sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the United Nations and enforced by the United States and the United Kingdom. Those sanctions caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and were described by the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday as a form of "genocide". As even the humanitarian panel of the UN Security Council noted in March 1999: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war."

Millions were malnourished, and millions were in exile.

How is that different from the situation produced by TB and GWB? The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq produced, at the height of the conflict, the Middle East's largest refugee crisis since the Palestinian exodus from Israel in 1948. Inside Iraq itself, according to the UN, more than 1.5 million people remain displaced.

One statistic above all tells us what Saddam's Iraq was like. According to the UN, by 2002 the number of deaths of children under the age of five was 130 per 1,000, a figure worse than that for the Congo.

Again, no mention of the impact of UN sanctions.

Before anyone says "Ah, but it was sanctions", it should be remembered that Saddam was free to buy as much food and medicine as he wanted.

This is untrue. As Professor Karol Sikora, then chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the sanctions committee]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons."

Prof Sikora added: "The saddest thing I saw in Iraq was children dying because there was no chemotherapy and no pain control. It seemed crazy they couldn't have morphine, because for everybody with cancer pain, it is the best drug. When I was there, they had a little bottle of htmlirin pills to go round 200 patients in pain." As Benon Sevan, executive director of the UN Office of the Iraq Programme, said in 2001: "The improvement of the nutritional and health status of the Iraqi people . . . is being seriously affected as a result of [the] excessive number of holds placed on supplies and equipment for water, sanitation and electricity."

In the Kurdish area, despite Saddam and despite sanctions covering them, too, the death rate for children was half that of central and southern Iraq.

Apples and oranges, Tony, apples and oranges. As a Unicef document in August 1999 on the differences in levels of child mortality between the autonomous northern governorates in the Kurdish areas and the rest of Iraq pointed out: ". . . the difference in the current rate cannot be attributed to the differing ways the Oil-for-Food Programme is implemented in the two parts of Iraq . . . We need to look at longer-term trends and factors, including the fact that since 1991 the north has received far more support per capita from the international community than the south and centre of Iraq. Another factor may be that the sanctions themselves have not been able to be so rigorously enforced in the north as the border is more 'porous' than in the south and centre of Iraq." And as Hans von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, noted in 2001: "The northern part of Iraq, where the Kurds live, is getting a disproportionate amount of oil revenue for the humanitarian programme. Thirteen per cent of the population living in that area is getting 20 per cent of the oil revenues."

The origins of this figure lie in the Lancet report published in October 2004 which purported to be a scientific analysis of deaths in Iraq. The figure they gave -- 600,000 -- led the news and became dominant, repeated as fact.

"Purported to be"? What does that mean? That the Lancet authors were pretending to offer "scientific analysis"? Sorry, are we now supposed to take the word of our former prime minister, a law graduate from Oxford, over the word of a peer-reviewed study produced by world-renowned epidemiologists and published in Britain's most prestigious medical journal?

Later the methodology on which this report was based was extensively challenged; its figures charged with being inaccurate and misleading; and the assessment made comprehensively questioned by other publications.

Eh? Did John Rentoul ghost-write this portion of the chapter? "Extensively challenged"? Here's Lila Giterman writing on the first Lancet report in the Columbia Journalism Review: "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or its conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates."

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true", and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have". In a letter to The Age, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously". But, best of all, the chief scientific adviser to TB's own Ministry of Defence said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and that the study design was "robust". Did No 10 not get his memo?

Friends opposed to the war think I'm being obstinate; others, less friendly, think I'm delusional.

No, I just think you're being dishonest, Tony. Seven years on from Iraq, nothing has changed. Off to bed . . .

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Tony Blair Iraq

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

90 comments

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:20 — martin (not verified)

Surely its obvious that the use of 'bliar' was deliberate in a piece about how TB hasn't changed?

good summary... the 'before anyone mentions sanctions' line got the most expletives out of me

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:22 — baboon (not verified)

BLIAR! HA ha ha! What a gem, Mehdi, I see what you did there!

There are still idiots who say 'the war was illegal' when they mean 'I didn't agree with it'. I didn't agree with it either, but I understood why it happened.

Are the same people on this blog blaming sanctions for costing three squintillion lives the same ones who wanted the Magic Moonbeam sanctions (you know, the ones that wouldn't hurt anyone except the despotic leader, oh no, not like the ones we've had before) instead of an invasion? Shame on you.

The anti-Blair contingent have changed their minds on Iraq more often than Blair has. I think it was a mistake, a strategic mistake, but I don't think it was evil.

Thu, 2010-09-02 10:53 — JB (not verified)

James Dickins is wrong on two counts. Iraq Body Count monitors around 70 major "non-Western" sources, along with 120 "Western" sources. It has good coverage of Arabic media (eg Al Sharqiyah TV) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/9

Also, the "1 million" estimate is very definitely NOT regarded as the most "reliable" by the scientific community. The ORB study which provided that estimate wasn't peer-reviewed science, and it's had virtually no mention in the scientific literature, with the exception of a recent study which found its data to have little credibility: http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/2373

Meanwhile, the Lancet 2006 study, which estimated 655,000 excess deaths, has received harsh criticism recently (in several peer-review studies, by leaders in the field) for the way it was implemented. See, for example, this list of criticisms: http://tinyurl.com/5bbyb6

And for a more recent list of scientific criticism of Lancet 2006, see the references at the end of this article: http://tinyurl.com/ibc-chilcot

The survey considered most "reliable" by the scientific community is the large-scale WHO/IFHS which estimated 151,000 violent deaths. And the most reliable database of documented deaths (as opposed to statistical estimates based on samples) is Iraq Body Count.

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:34 — Alexandra (not verified)

Tony Blair is an evil bastard.

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:37 — Seneca (not verified)

Rancor is an outpouring of a feeling of inferiority.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:42 — Zastro (not verified)

Not sure I can take the writing of someone who denies themselves food to appease a mythical fantasy figure seriously.

Sorry.

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:49 — Rob (not verified)

... typo in parantheses in para 3, excused due to tiredness ... "became" should be "because". Feel free to delete this valueless comment!

Thu, 2010-09-02 10:59 — Mohon (not verified)

In response to Richard's comment. Still Iraqi's die to this present day and that's your perception of doing well? Also where are you quoting these figures from? The Iraqi people have no choices only choices being thrust upon them by the USA/UK which will serve only their interests and not the Iraqi people.

Fri, 2010-09-03 05:05 — bramble (not verified)

Thanks for the fisking.

Can't agree with the prissy, pedantic reservations about use of Bliar. It's an accurate and engaging way of portraying the deliberate, selective myths perpetrated by a over-powerful dangerous leader who should be tried for war crimes.

This disdain for a popular slogan and snobbish priority on word choice is an infantile disorder - ex Trots/lefties going rightwards like Nick Cohen love such diversions.

Wed, 2010-09-01 12:56 — A Cheffie (not verified)

This is a good, solid takedown, and it's a valuable corrective to Blair's self-serving version of events.

However, I know three people already who have got no further than your sub-heading due to your use of the epithet "Bliar", no less sententious and trite now than when it was coined and, along with similar strained coinages like "Zanu-Lab PF", an instant signifier that the views of the person using it can safely be discarded as ill-informed rants.

This is a pity as I think this article should be required reading, less for those who need no convincing about Blair's ability to delude himself than for those who still hold out some sympathy for him. I hope you can see that you're unlikely to persuade people of your case if you begin by doing the equivalent of drawing a cock on Blair's forehead.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:01 — What a load of rubbish (not verified)

Worst. Fisking. Ever.

A proper Fisking requires the use of solid facts to knock down claims, not recycled quotes from newspapers, bloggers and campaign groups, none of whom can ever be assumed to be 100% accurate.

Yes, there were people who said the war would be a disaster and that Iraq didn't have WMDs. There were also plenty of people who said it wouldn't be a disaster and that he DID have WMDs.

Plus, as pointed out right at the top, you lose all credibility if use "BLiar" in a supposedly serious analysis of anything. Makes you look like a shouty sixth-former trying to flog copies of Socialist Worker to your classmates.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:15 — Arbolioto (not verified)

Typically, Blair is being Blair He is not the problem. The problem lies with the English people who elect dodgy leaders like Thatcher, Blair and now Cameron -- politicians who are sort of a bit Looney Tunes in their views of the world, like siding with Reagan, Bush and Clegg. The Scots, Welsh and N Irish have learnt their lessons and keep well away of our corrupt Parliament.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:15 — Richard (not verified)

To all those who say you should meet some Iraqi people...I have and do often. I have Iraqi's I work with who tell me they fled Iraq in fear of Saddam, one person I know lost his whole family to him (14 in total). I suspect those asking me the question would find it hard to answer themselves.
Listen the war was over in 10 days a terrific success by any measure. The failure (i accept it was a failure) was the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the input of Iran.
I also believe they should have been more aware of the insurgents. however that is all done now and the people are now doing ok. Of all the Arab nations it has the most potential to improve life for its people under a democracy...its up to them if they take it.
Lastly the death toll is 90% insurgents 10% coalition. Go do some research.
Mention Blair and the loyal baying hounds all prick their ears and in one voice shout "Iraq"
go get a new script this one is so old its written in sandscript.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:27 — The Web of Evil (not verified)

> the death toll is 90% insurgents 10% coalition.

... and 0% civilians? Wow, we've been doing better in Iraq than I thought.

Wed, 2010-09-01 13:42 — BORED (not verified)

You are the one who is totally delusional! It's all should've, would've, could've.

The facts remain that Saddam was an evil dictator who should never have remained in place after the Gulf War. Simple. You defending Saddam's regime is far worse than those defending TB. The anti-Iraq camp claim the war was illegal because it wasn't backed by the UN (ignore the pacifists), yet you still attack the UN's sanctions...this was legitimate action was it not?

Grow up Mr Hasan, you're boring me now!

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:09 — tim6

excellent article - thank you

Fri, 2010-09-03 07:22 — scampy

Why have the Islamic nutters not issued a fatwa on the lying war criminal Tony Blair?
If anyone deserves punishment it is this dog Blair.

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:45 — Rob (not verified)

@BORED we did not oppose the war in defence of Saddam's regime, but in defence of the Iraqi people, and we would have opposed it even if Blair and Bush had got their security council resolution, as we opposed the sanctions. Legal is not always the same thing as right.

However, one of the excuses used for the war was that it was upholding international law. Given this, it was important to make the case that this was a lie - Blair and Bush clearly did not have grounds under the UN charter to go to war.

Why don't you go outside, get some sunlight and stop boring us?

Wed, 2010-09-01 14:55 — mano (not verified)

One of the many consequences of the Iraq war was that Saddam was removed from power. I think nearly everyone would agree that this fact in isolation is a good thing, but for Blair and his supporters to present this as the only thing we should be judging the war on is frankly disgusting for the disregard it displays for the millions of Iraqis whose lives have been affected by the conflict.

Fri, 2010-09-03 08:34 — writeon1

It's easy to simply regard Blair as a shallow, conceited, and ridiculous poltroon. A grotesque figure struting the international stage in a vain search for glory and financial gain.

Yet, it's important to remember that he's, along with Bush, arguably one of the worst war criminals of recent history. That a criminal on such a scale, responsible for so much killing and destruction, based on solid foundation of lies, propaganda and manipulation, is still allowed to roam freely and profit from his crimes, says a lot about our 'democracy' and its true structure and character.

In a healthy and functioning democracy Blair wouldn't have been able to function as a virtual dictator and drag an unwilling country to war based on lies, and he certainly wouldn't have been allowed to get away with his crimes once it was revealed that his justifications for leading the country to war were fabrications and pure propaganda.

But we don't atually live in a democracy anymore. That era is over. We have moved on towards something else entirely. A ritual husk hiding a new form of totalitarianism, that resembles fascism with a human face, at least for now.

And it isn't just in the UK. The United States has become a de facto military regime, with the military at the heart of society, its backbone. As Obama stated recently, our troops are the steel in our ship of state.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:07 — steet (not verified)

War apologists, eh? To apologise (or to argue) for the reckless, needless and illegal slaughter of civilians is to partake in it. Get some heart you little Hitlers. Ever wonder why your partners close their eyes during sex? It's because they hate you and everything you've become. Laters.

Fri, 2010-09-03 09:04 — Rodney Ulyate

How is it that you fail to discern the doublethink in your fatuous squawks about the effect of sanctions? If you mean to propose that they should have been removed, you should in all honesty accept the corollary: that Saddam must follow them.

At any rate, the position you appear to espouse -- that he ought to have been left to pursue his gory whims in freedom -- makes me want to barf up things I haven't even eaten.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:12 — Jeff (not verified)

"I also believe they should have been more aware of the insurgents. however that is all done now and the people are now doing ok. Of all the Arab nations it has the most potential to improve life for its people under a democracy...its up to them if they take it."

@Richard

Your definition of "doing OK" seems rather strange... no clean water, frequent electricity outages, destroyed infrastructure, civilians who are scared to go out and do their thing....your next sentence is sadistic tongue in cheek. Before the invasion Iraq had the HIGHEST literacy rate of all the Arab nations... now, they have blown up schools (courtesy of the coalition) to go to read their burnt out books.

Is democracy really worth the basic needs and wants in life? If you asked me if I would rather have a decent education, health (compared to the rest of the region), electricity, water and a job or sacrifice all that for a tick in a box - well - which would you choose?

Fri, 2010-09-03 09:38 — writeon1

I'm not a fan of brutal dictators, or their regimes, but Saddam has been demonized beyond reason in order to justify the attack on Iraq and the ongoing occupation designed to secure our access to and control of Iraq's vast energy reserves.

Whilst Saddam was our ally, fighting a proxy war for us, when his gory brutality was in synch with our interests, remember the war with Iran? Saddam was subject to the kidglove treatment by the west. He was a guest a the flippin' Whitehouse. He shook hands with western leaders. Iraq received support, weapons, loans, and massive and valuable intelligence when it was fighting Iran. Saddam was our ally, our bulwalk against Iran. At that time western leaders didn't give a damn about human rights abuses in Iraq. All that only becomes important when we no longer have any use for thugs like Saddam.

In reality the world resembles Chicago when crime ruled the city. Rival criminal gangs competing with each other over territory and wealth. In a way we live in a modified form of fuedalism, or maybe that should be fascism?

Anyway, who decides which kind of 'gore' is good or bad? How exactly is Saddam worse than Blair or Bush? All of these criminals have the stench of blood and gore all over them. In a way I prefer Saddam because he seems, at a safe distance, less of a deluded hypocrit, compared to Bush and Blair. But one this level of mass slaughter it's probably of minor importance.

Fri, 2010-09-03 10:14 — Dave C (not verified)

The article "United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_I...

is quite enlightening. Reagan and Bush senior were quite happy to support a fascist if he served their purpose.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:38 — Martin (not verified)

"Bliar." Agree with everyone else on this. Sixth-former stuff. Terrifically misjudged.

The Jonathan Steele piece you link to argues against you. The gist of it is that there was too little prewar analysis - not that Blair was well aware that the invasion might be a disaster. They didn't do their homework - that's the point.

So you can talk about poor judgment, incompetence, lack of seriousness, lack of thought. But outright dishonesty?

And if Blair knew Iraq would be a catastrophe, why did he invade? Why did he knowingly lead the country into a "nightmare"? Is it impossible to credit Blair with the belief that getting rid of Saddam would be good for Iraq and for the world?

The WMD stuff. We know now that there weren't any WMDs. Did Blair know at the time? Did everyone know then that the intelligence was faulty, that the inspections process was a farce? This just isn't the case, is it? The Blair view in 2002 was the consensus view.

And, again, if it was well known at the time that there were no WMDs why was it in Blair's interests to lie about all this and press ahead with the invasion regardless? It really doesn't add up.

We're supposed to believe that all this was done deliberately and knowingly. The harm the war did to the reputations of those involved, the damage to the prestige and reputation of the west, the enormous cost in blood and gold - Blair anticipated all of this and everything was one big lie. This wasn't incompetence or terrible misjudgment, it was nothing but bloodlust and deceit.

I believed at the time that Iraq was a mistake, but I'm prepared to believe that it was a sincere mistake. It's only possible to maintain the "Bliar" analysis if you refuse to allow that there was a sincere and credible pro-war case, that it was possible for intelligent people to support the war for honourable reasons. Since there was no such case, we're left with the "bloodthirsty liar" analysis.

I don't buy it.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:40 — Bob (not verified)

It's sanskrit Richard not sandscript.

go do some research....

Fri, 2010-09-03 10:51 — ang (not verified)

Blair seemed to hint that his drinking was to do with Gordon. I suspect that Blair found it very difficult to sleep, with images of frightened, injured and dead iraqi children, haunting him every night.

Wed, 2010-09-01 15:53 — Richard (not verified)

@Jeff
Ever been to Haiti or Ethiopia?
Your picture of power outages and chaos is out of date. Even Jeffery Archer is telling people to look at the opportunities in Iraq now.
The country is well placed to become the real center of the Arab world should it chose it. The legacy of learning and secular culture will endure and thrive.....come back in 15 years and say Saddam was great.
You are also forgetting the Kurds who have gone from strength to strength.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:02 — Stew (not verified)

Get over it. Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against civilians, launched missiles against Israel, invaded Kuwait and would no doubt have had another Iran scale war in the region. It had to be done and the war/aftermath is nothing on the scale of other 19th/20th century conflicts.
It's just a real shame, and this is where blame should be attached, that the UK & US, having written the book on postwar reconstruction (Japan/Germany) didn't plan and execute it in Iraq.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:05 — yoctobarryc

Mehdi this is clearly an obsession of yours looking at the time and effort you have put into the article. I would call it fanatical devotion to your cause, but we won't go there.

There are three things I want to add:
1) You are wrong to deny that Saddam hindered attempts to inspect his weapons systems. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of 2002 noted "Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction".

2) You are wrong to make sanctions the bad guy here. Why were sanction imposed? Because Saddam decided to flout international law and refuse to disclose his weapons programme. This was made crystal clear in numerous security council resolutions.

And in any case, if Saddam wasn't deposed by war, the policy of containment and sanctions would have continued. Unless you opposed the war *and* the alternative of continued sanctions, in which case I would truly despair at your lack of moral backbone.

3) You are wrong to say that Saddam wasn't given ample opportunity to change course. The final ultimatum delivered to Saddam was for him and his sons to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face immediate military action.

I am not one of these people who thought it would be better to keep Saddam as a counter-weight to Iran. I believe that the gigantic cock-up that followed the war was the bigger tragedy than the war itself. I also believe that Iraq is a better place than it would have been without the war. Furthermore I believe the often fractious and volatile Middle East will benefit in having another true Arab democracy in the region.

I do not believe that Tony Blair is a war criminal and I think we should finally let the matter rest.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:11 — Zain (not verified)

Richard,

No-one said Saddam was great.

You say: "The country is well placed to become the real center of the Arab world should it chose it." Well, Iraq was historically the centre of the Arab world, until we started propping up dictators and discovered oil. As others have said, even under Saddam Iraq was pretty prosperous. The sanctions imposed on Iraq destroyed the middle class, and the war just made things worse. How will "The legacy of learning and secular culture...endure and thrive" without any infrastructure, schools, healthcare or even a government that will act in its own people's interests? Take a look at the companies operating in Iraq - the reconstruction contracts are exclusively foreign, with the aim of commercialising Iraq's national resources. How much of the revenue from this will the Iraqi people see? If you want an example of how that situation plays out, take a look at poverty and public services in Saudi Arabia.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:17 — Zain (not verified)

Stew,

"and would no doubt have had another Iran scale war in the region." Evidence, please?

I don't think you understand the criticism of sanctions. No-one is trying to say that Saddam wa a good person and that he didn't commit atrocities, quite the opposite in fact. The issue is that sanctions, bluntly, didn't affect him, and just punished the poor and powerless in Iraq.

We don't really know exactly what anyone said or did not say to Saddam. What is known is that he was a madman who was put in power with the support of foreign governments. Again, no-one is saying he shouldn't have been punished, just that the Iraq war was an extremely bad way of doing it.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:18 — Zain (not verified)

Edit - the last two paragraphs of my comment above are in response to yoctobarryc 's comment.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:41 — Stew (not verified)

Evidence? He started two and tried to start one with the regions nuclear superpower. Maybe he was going to convert to buddhism, but you know what, I doubt it.
Anyway he had it coming for what he had already done.
But like I said Bush and Blair hadn't learned the lessons of history and didn't know how to finish the war and reconstruct. A real shame as it could have been the Arab industrial power and provided a counterbalance to Iran. Even worse, it's made it impossible to go in and topple other fascist and communist regimes now and in future.

Such a shame Bush1 had to stop at the gates.

Wed, 2010-09-01 16:54 — michaelpetek

It's simple really. If Iraq had not been threatening international peace and security at the time of the invasion, the Security Council could not lawfully have seized itself of the matter unde Chapter VII, which was officially headed 'The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait'.

The Security Council was fully entitled to approve, as it did, of the invasion after the event as being in the better interests of peace.

The international community as a whole was within its rights to recognise the post-invasion government of Iraq and to withdraw recognition from Saddam Hussein and his successor Izzat ad-Douri. All governments in the world (and the UN)now recognise the new government, or else acquiesce, with no state persistently protesting.

This has the effect of retrospectively altering the law to render the invasion lawful from the beginning.

Thu, 2010-09-02 16:00 — Richard (not verified)

@Mohon
You seem to think that to do nothing had no consequences. Iraqi's die today and will tomorrow and next week/month/year. They will continue to die until the govt sort out the insurgents. Remember the actual war was over in 10 days. Within a month the presence of troops was under a UN mandate.
There has been an iraqi govt for the last 7 years.
Now lets look at the possible outcome if Saddam had remained.
Him and his maniac sons would still be ruling through fear and intimidation that is for certain.
The UN sanctions would have been lifted or at least eased. With oil money he would have reconstituted his weapons programme (the Iraq survey group confirm this was his intention)
There would be an arms race with Iran over nuclear weapons....be honest you really think Saddam would have been tolerent and happy with a nuclear Iran next door after the history between them and the wars?
The Marsh Arabs were heading for extinction and would be in terminal delcine they are now thriving with their wet lands now being restored.
So if you accept that there would be deaths one way or another and the consequences could have resulted in a nuclear arms race possibly war which lesser of two evils would you put your money on.
Oh and finally the million dead claim is just plain wrong nearer 150K with the vast majority killed by insurgents (estimate = 90%)
So what is it mate?

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:04 — Sam Dale (not verified)

This absurd Saddam apologism does not belong on the left. You write as though Saddam was some kind of hero - and to the modern leftists he seems to be.

Fri, 2010-09-03 11:38 — writeoff (not verified)

Martin:"The WMD stuff. We know now that there weren't any WMDs. Did Blair know at the time? Did everyone know then that the intelligence was faulty, that the inspections process was a farce? This just isn't the case, is it? The Blair view in 2002 was the consensus view. "

Where were you then? I thought everyone knew the inspections were being obstructed by the powers that wanted to invade. Largely because It Was Bloody Obvious. You are either trying to re-write history or were so far behind the curve you're never going to catch up.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:20 — Bruce (not verified)

Brilliant article and research. Before I read the comments, I thought I could post that the New £abour 'let's move on' brigade were out in force. But actually they are as scarce as 45-minute deployable munitions in Iraq. What happened to them, I wonder?

Sun, 2010-09-12 12:46 — joya (not verified)

great article. it's easy to forget what actually happened and who said what- and we shouldn't. i hope ed miliband gets in, and we can forget about TB and this sad part of labour's past

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:27 — Pylon (not verified)

Here's a little something I made, re-imagining "A Journey" as the Fighting Fantasy story that it really is:
http://pylon.posterous.com/fighting-fantasy-tony-blair-a-journey

Sat, 2010-09-04 11:24 — scampy

Blair has partially admitted that Alister Campbell was a mistake who kept him on the back foot continually defending himself, which came to the stage when no one believed Blair and his ministers even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth?

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:43 — Iden (not verified)

@baboon

Yes, people still say the war was illegal - because it was.

Well, OK, it is debatable, but most international law experts argue that it was illegal while the handful on the UK and US governments' payroll say that it wasn't. Go figure.

I would post some links, but there's so much content from reputable sources to back me up I'll let you google it yourself.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:41 — mano (not verified)

@Martin
"I'm prepared to believe that it was a sincere mistake."

It isn't remotely unusual for people who commit criminal acts to be sincere in their belief that they were acting honourably. All indications suggest that the 9/11 hijackers were sincere in their belief that they were fighting for a noble cause sanctioned by God. Genocidal dictators praise themselves for having the strength and courage to commit what they regard as necessary evils that they believe are ultimately in the interests of the greater good. But whatever beliefs a person sincerely holds are not enough to absolve them of a crime. If that were the case, almost no one would ever be held accountable for wrong-doing. So Blair and his allies in government may have sincerely believed that war was the best course of action, but that doesn't in itself absolve them of a crime. Even if they were sincere, there are strong indications that they intentionally misled the public (e.g., the so-called 'dodgy dossier' plagiarised from an old PhD thesis, sexed up intelligence, and so on) to bolster their case, but whether it was a war crime or not does not hinge on this.

Wed, 2010-09-01 17:51 — Dark Lochnagar (not verified)

You neglect to mention the one reason for the war with Iraq. The fact that Saddam had started to sell his oil in Euros which threatened the PetroDollar if anyone else followed suit and the then probable crash of the US monetry system.

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:08 — jkk (not verified)

Thanks, interesting article. Someone helpfully pput a link in a guardian article comments section. If only the guardian would print this article rather than pages of Brown-Blair tittle tattle.

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:25 — stuart (not verified)

saddam hussein was are best allie against al qaeda and we kicked him in the teeth big style.i have watched videos where the republican guard captured al qaeda terrorists and boy did those terrorists know the meaning of pain after they was dealt with by saddams men,saddam done a lot of good work against the al qaeda low lifes and he will be sadly missed.

Wed, 2010-09-01 18:29 — kj (not verified)

surprised so many still think the invasion of iraq had everything to do with saddam's tyranny, and nothing to do with currency. i don't believe iraq was ever intended to benefit from the war, despite what Blair says.