I have been busy finishing my current job and preparing to leave and work as an English teacher overseas the last few weeks, and hence have not posted frequently lately.
Tony Blair has not officially ended his run as Prime Minister, stepping aside and letting Gordon Brown take over as leader of the Labour Party. I for one am going to miss Tony, and I only wish we would have had a politician more like him leading our nation during the last few years.
Blair took a socialist Labour Party and pulled it kicking and screaming into the modern era, while still maintaining its humanitarian and democratic world view. While I am a libertarian at heart, I have no problem giving support to market centered social democrats like Blair, and I would have categorically voted with the New Labour in Britain if I had been a citizen.
While Blair’s domestic policy furthered his nation’s stature in the world by making it more competitive and modernized, he will undoubtedly be remembered for his decision to invade Iraq. While George Bush ran around the State telling American’s that you were “with us, or against us”, Blair made the humanitarian argument needed to persuade the democratic left and right that the right’s of the Iraqi people trumped the sovereignty of Saddam’s regime. Bush would have been able to hold more support for the war if he was capable of explaining its justification and ramifications like Tony Blair.
So farewell Tony, I hope someone like you fills your shoes soon.
Posts
5 comments:
I'm not disagreeing with you exactly, but Blair's commendable efforts at persuasion are kind of sad in light of the fact that opposition to the Iraq War has been, if anything, more pronounced among the population of Britain than among the population of America.
And I never did get to hear Blair wail on that guitar of his.
On the plus side he gave Labout thrre successive elction victoies (labour never had two full terms before), we have had 10 years of economic stability, and we now see peace in Northern Ireland. Iraq is the elephant in the room of course.
It is true that Blair is less popular in Britain than Bush may be here in the States. But I do think that history will be kinder on Blair then it will on Bush, simply because he was so capable at explaining his position and reasoning for the conflict.
Huh? Blair made the case for war on the basis of 'self defence', on the basis that the UK was imminently threatened by 'weapons of mass destruction' that could be deployed in 45 minutes. He supported his case with doctored intelligence reports shorn of all the caveats and privisos. Only when his dissembling was uncovered did he attempt to make the 'humanitarian' case for the war.
Stephen:
I am not going to even bother going over these “doctored intelligence reports” you claim to posses, since the sheer foolishness of that comment is enough to discount your opinion. As any intel officer will tell you, intelligence is never a “sure” bet, and it always falls upon assumptions. While I may feel the Bush administration may have overlooked intel that did not meet their opinions, all administrations do, and the inevitable choice to go to war is political.
The basic reasoning and literature put forth by supporters of the war was clearly to redefine the region using democratic revolution to overthrow dictators and put forth governments that must adhere to their people’s wishes and rights.
I call bullshit on your assumption that Blair simply pursued the war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.
Post a Comment