Blair: One year after Iraq

Essay
By Mark Mardell
BBC chief political correspondent

One place Mr Blair is guaranteed a warm welcome

A couple of days ago there was an unusual sight in Westminster - three teenage girls, walking past Parliament in red T shirts bearing the striking white polka dot legend "Tony Blair Fan Club".

A stunt by Labour's youth wing, perhaps? No, it turns out they were patriotic young Americans.

"We love your Tony Blair, because he supports us", they said.

Mr Blair's firm stance on the war has made him a hero for many Americans and probably many Iraqis.

But how else has it changed things for Mr Blair?

Media obsession?

First of all, we're still talking about it.

Does this "huge trust thing" as Alastair Campbell called in his argument with the BBC, actually matter?

An election is not much more than a year away and cabinet ministers regularly show frustration that the media is "still" obsessed with Iraq and its aftermath when they want to talk about schools and hospitals.

In other words they want to concentrate on a positive rather than something they fear is a negative.

But they really shouldn't be so surprised.

In all the heat of the argument about the rights and wrongs of the war, what has been lost is the sheer size of Mr Blair's political gamble.

Risky behaviour

Never before has a politician in a modern democracy taken his country to war when around half the country was against it.

When his parliamentary party was instinctively opposed and had to be bullied and cajoled into support.

The prime minister has a healthy US fanbase

When his most important allies in Europe were fundamentally opposed.

When the United Nations could not be persuaded to back the war.

Failure would have been catastrophic for Mr Blair, and could have quickly led to his political demise.

Military success

But by two important measures there has been more success than failure.

The military action was quickly successful without dreadful British casualties or obvious humanitarian disasters.

The situation in Iraq is clearly very unstable, but only a fool would have expected otherwise.

Saddam has been captured, there has been no civil war and the Iraqi people are very much more inclined to support the coalition than any resistance movement.

The case for war

No, Mr Blair is not haunted not by the consequences of war, but his rationale for it.

Brothers in arms

It is usual for historians to agonise over the reasons for wars in journals and books decades or centuries after the events they describe. It is less usual for them to be the subject of angry contemporary debate.

That is because at the time the reasons are not usually in dispute.

Your country or your allies have been invaded or attacked.

Or less commonly, because the behaviour of a near neighbour is so intolerable towards its own people it must be stopped immediately.

Or for that matter, with less moral worth, but with equal clarity, aggressive territorial conquest.

But to go to war because you decide there is sufficient future potential threat from a country far away to regional stability is a matter of very fine judgement.

Shaky foundations?

Each time the argument is rehashed people question the very quality that must be central to every politician: his or her good judgement.

More damaging still is the impression among some voters that the prime minister was not entirely straight with them; that he wanted the war and his reasoning varied with time and his audience.

It's been a tough year

Mr Blair continues to make passionate speeches arguing this is untrue and unfair, particularly as his name has been cleared by three inquiries.

It may be unfair - but was probably inevitable when the case against Saddam rested on so many different arguments: his behaviour to his own people, his breach of UN resolutions, the necessity of standing firm with America and the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to mention a few of the favourites.

So many bricks should have built into a solid wall of evidence, but instead somehow gave many people the impression of a rather jerry built makeshift structure.

So each time the war is picked over the prime minister's judgement and usually his veracity is being questioned.

The 'trust thing'

It was telling that when Mr Blair was asked recently at prime minister's question time whether people still believed he was "a pretty straight sort of guy".

He could raise cold fury but not the answer "Yes".

Does this "huge trust thing" as Alastair Campbell called in his argument with the BBC, actually matter?

Many of these doubters are potential Labour members, or at least voters. They might, just might, stay at home in an election.

These people may be less willing to trust the Prime Minister on other issues, such as improvements in schools and hospitals. It will set a minority of hostile Labour members musing more seriously whether it is time for a change of party leader.

Yet Mr Blair has effected a revolution in British politics, and the war is part of that revolution.

It was only three elections ago that Labour was thought to be weak on defence. Suspicions of Pinko surrenderism hung over the party.

Gallic obscenities

No one now would accuse Mr Blair of that. For a Labour leader to be thought too eager for war is in one sense a plus.

If Senator John Kerry does become the next US president, no-one would be in a more interesting position than Tony Blair Why Blair is staying out of the US presidential race

I would also guess that in a genuine crisis a majority would trust Blair the patriot to handle it with decisiveness and toughness.

The war has also reinforced Blair's position as one of the world's most important statesmen, but it has badly undermined some crucial relationships.

On the night the war began the French President Jacques Chirac called Mr Blair something unprintable, in French.

At the beginning of this year a senior figure in the new Spanish government used a similarly abusive term about the prime minister.

The Kerry question

Both obscenities sprang directly from differences about the war.

It has damaged his relationship with the key movers and shakers in the European Union.

But it has also made him the natural leader for the new EU countries, the former communists, instinctively pro-American and tough on defence. It could be the beginning of a new alliance very much in Britain's interest.

The perception that Mr Blair feels more comfortable with world leaders from the right, than what might be considered his more natural allies, is reinforced by the current awkwardness towards US Democrats.

He could not bring himself to congratulate John Kerry, who questions the war, when he won the Democratic nomination.

If Mr Kerry should win the presidential election, Mr Blair will feel rather lonely, and perhaps begin to look part of an ancient regime.

World government

But even after an uncertain deluge he may also be the prophet of a new world order, and - like all prophets - without honour in his own country.

He argues for a new doctrine of war. One that ignores national boundaries and allows military intervention against brutal dictators on the grounds of their brutality.

A new imperialism or a plea for a world policeman?

One day perhaps a World Government may look on Mr Blair as the EU now looks on Charlemagne.

Iraq's legacy may be a long one indeed but for now Mr Blair would just like to shake off the mantle of war leader and international philosopher and settle for a third term.

Use the form below to send your views on how the decision to go to war in Iraq changed things for the Prime Minister.

---

Your comments

There is no doubt that the English Channel is wider than the Atlantic when it comes to friendship and alliance Andy Burns, UK

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that the English Channel is wider than the Atlantic when it comes to friendship and alliance. The US supported us against European enemies sixty years ago and I am proud that Tony Blair took a stand against an evil dictator even when nearly everyone else in Europe was prepared to turn a blind eye and let him get away with murder. If it costs Tony Blair his job I'm sad, but at least he showed some guts and proved to be the right man in the right place at the right time. A bit like Churchill really!
Andy Burns, UK

I believe Tony Blair has unfortunately lost the battle in UK over his integrity, but history will give him the accolades. He is right, it is not right for the United Nations to be 'legally' bound to protect brutal dictators. It should be on the side of the oppressed and deprived people. If this came about then there would certainly be no future Iraq type war.
Mike P, UK

To go against the will of the people who charged you with the leadership of their nation is an interesting decision. Either Mr Blair knows more than we do and didn't share it, or he disagreed with us and decided that his own opinion was more relevant. Whichever is the case for Gulf War II, he should have found another way. If his policy is to remove threats before they kill countless innocents, perhaps we should remove him now. Just in case he takes us to war again.
Rob Simpson, UK

I am British, but studying in the States. Blair has delivered the longest sustained economic growth, record employment, a great economy and improvements in public services. It's sad that people prefer to whinge that because 40% of people (at the time) opposed the Iraq War. He's a strong leader making this world safer, but the zip-up cardigan Lib Dem elites don't appreciate this.
Tom Sleigh, Cambridge, USA

We also want to live decent lives Cesar Fabunan, Philippines

Most Americans and some Brits may see PM Blair as a staunch defender of freedom and democracy like Pres. Bush, but many of us in the so-called developing countries think otherwise. Whose freedom are you talking about? Whose brand of democracy are you fighting for? Certainly not ours. You wage war for your own freedoms and brand of democracy, and at our expense. Your governments, through their policies and meddling, brewed much of the hatred and bitterness many hold against you. We also want to live decent lives.
Cesar Fabunan, Philippines

When will people stop confusing the war on terror with the war on Iraq?
Neil, USA

Tony Blair showed he is willing to risk his career for what he believes in. About time politicians took this route! Mr Blair will be getting my vote in the coming elections.
Dougall A Marshall, Scotland

The twin towers were demolished, and I asked myself on that day if the US would ever stop to ask why? The reasons given for invasion of Iraq seemed completely spurious then and now. If the reasons were primarily humanitarian, then why is Mugabe still left in power in Zimbabwe ?
Frank James, England

As an American and an old soldier, I will never forget Tony Blair's (and Britain's) support for the US in this war on terror - regardless of the doubts many of us had about Iraq. When you are alone against many, you don't forget who is next to you.
Craig S Carson, USA