Tony
Blair rejects 'bizarre' claims that invasion of Iraq caused the
crisis
'We
have to liberate ourselves from the notion that "we" caused
this', argues former prime minister in website essay
14
June, 2014
Tony
Blair has strongly rejected claims that the 2003 US-UK invasion of
Iraq was to blame for the current crisis gripping the country,
pointing the finger instead firmly at the Maliki government and the
war in Syria.
In
a passionate essay published on his Faith Foundation website, the
former prime minister said it was a "bizarre" reading of
the situation to argue that the US-British invasion of Iraq had
allowed the growth of Sunni jihadist groups such as the Islamic State
in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), whose fighters have swept through
towns and cities north and west of Baghdad over the past week.
"We
have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused
this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points
have helped or not: and whether action or inaction is the best
policy. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the
region not outside it.
"We
have to put aside the differences of the past and act now to save the
future," says Blair, adding that force may be necessary. "Where
the extremists are fighting, they have to be countered hard, with
force."
His
intervention came as the Pentagon said that US defence secretary
Chuck Hagel had dispatched the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush
and two guided missile ships into the Gulf as a precautionary
measure.
Rear
Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Bush will
be accompanied by the guided missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and
the guided missile destroyer USS Truxton. The ships were expected to
arrive in the Gulf on Saturday night. Kirby described the deployment
as increasing Obama's martial flexibility "should military
options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests
in Iraq", rather than signalling an imminent strike.
And
in London, government officials confirmed that British military
personnel could be deployed in Iraq to help tackle the growing threat
to the stability of the region from Isis.
Although
the Foreign Office ruled out full-scale military intervention,
sources confirmed they had had discussions about sending military and
police as part of a "counter-terrorism" package.
In
a defence of his actions in Iraq, Blair attacked as "extraordinary"
any notion the country would be stable if Saddam Hussein had stayed
in power.
"The
civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its
predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The
whole of the Middle East is under threat."
He
said it was inevitable that events across Iraq had raised the
arguments over the 2003 war. While admitting that no weapons of mass
destruction had been found in Iraq, he said: "What we now know
from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the west, was
manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used
them. We also know, from the final weapons inspectors' reports, that
though it is true that Saddam got rid of the physical weapons, he
retained the expertise and capability to manufacture them.
"Is
it likely, knowing what we now know about Assad, that Saddam, who had
used chemical weapons both against the Iranians in the 1980s war –
that resulted in over a million casualties – and against his own
people, would have refrained from returning to his old ways? Surely
it is at least as likely that he would have gone back to them?"
Blair
said a likely scenario was that during the Arab spring Iraq would
have been engulfed in civil war which would have blown sectarian
conflict across the region. "So it is a bizarre reading of the
cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the
removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis."
He
added that until three years ago al-Qaida had been a "spent
force" in Iraq and that the country had had a chance to rebuild
itself. "It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed,
since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had
contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.
"Though
the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of
the Maliki government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to
build a cohesive Iraq. This, combined with the failure to use the oil
money to rebuild the country, and the inadequacy of the Iraqi forces,
have led to the alienation of the Sunni community and the inability
of the Iraqi army to repulse the attack on Mosul and the earlier loss
of Falluja. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of
US forces happened too soon."
He
said that the rise of Isis was partly a consequence of the Syrian
war. "To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was
planned and organised from Raqqa, across the Syria border. The
fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war.
"At
its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone.
9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it
have not disappeared."
He
added: "This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or
not."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.