Iraq War

If there is one event that will define the years that Tony Blair was in power, it will undoubtedly be the invasion of Iraq and the pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This event will stand out certainly because of the negative criticism he has received for the decision, also because of the loss of life, but also because many regard it as epitomising the attitude of British politicians towards the United States of America.
One of the major condemnations of the Iraq conflict for Tony Blair is the inability to find any WMDs in Iraq, suggesting that the claim that Saddam Hussein was able to launch nuclear missiles against the UK was a fabrication. Obviously, if this is the case, Blair would deserve the criticism he receives as deliberately misleading the public, especially over a matter of conflict involving potential loss of life, is serious indeed. And British public opinion seems decisively against the decision to invade; with 55% of people believing the decision to invade Iraq was wrong as of 7th June 2007. (Figure from YouGov.com)
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why politicians around the globe would fabricate evidence such as this in order to invade. Despite their being a case to suggest that American foreign policy was directed towards securing Middle-Eastern oilfields, it hardly seems credible that such a big piece of evidence should be fictitious.
One reason for this notion is that, although Russia, Germany and France opposed the war, they did not claim that Iraq was not in the process of producing, or had at the time, any WMDs. Rather, their claim was that they were not credible threats to their countries or the world. Therefore, it is the nature of the weapons that it questioned, not the existence of the weapons.
Secondly, it seems odd that politicians should fabricate such a big piece of evidence in order to be allowed to invade Iraq. They would have been aware that nay of invasion would place them under an obligation to find these WMDs. If their existence was faked, it would become apparent after the invasion that they never existed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Iraq did not have WMDs. However, it is certainly the case that the American-led forces have been unable to find these weapons, suggesting that they were either destroyed, removed to Syria etc. or that they never existed.
Overall, therefore, the case for the existence of WMDs is strong, but it is the fundamental nature of the weapons, and their disappearance that causes questions to be raised as to the credibility of evidence cited by the Government. Thus, politicians who sued this argument to justify the invasion, such as Tony Blair, have found themselves on loose ground.
Many people find fault with the Iraq war because of the apparent complicit nature of Tony Blair and his government to the foreign policy of the USA. Indeed, it would seem that far from being independent of America, Britain, like many states in the world, have become tools for implementing America’s ideological and political ideas. However, American influence cannot be said to stretch as far as to totally influence the actions of the British government, but it can be seen where the UK was attempting to keep in step with the USA’s tune, something many opponents see as a major falling point for Tony Blair.
It must be stressed, however, that it was not only Labour politicians who voted for the war, far from it. Many voters against the war were Labour MPs, and many supporters of the war were Conservative politicians. The decision to go to war was not a executive decision, but a legislative one, done so because a majority of MPs voted for the war. In short, the war is as politically legitimate (provided no deception took place) as any bill enacted by Parliament concerning theft or murder.
Another major problem for Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq war was the inevitable loss of civilian life in Iraq, and the loss of soldier’s lives. Human rights groups, the church, and indeed, many ordinary citizens have been rightly angered by the appearance of arrogance and callousness on the part of the leaders for how their action will affect people in the Middle East. It would be impossible to consider the decision to invade Iraq as humanitarian towards its civilians in terms of the deaths that would occur.
Nevertheless, the most compelling argument for the Iraq war I have heard is to challenge the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein’s rule. People argue that, as Saddam Hussein was installed as the effective ruler of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1990, he is considered a legitimate ruler by many of the participant countries of the 1st and 2nd invasion of Iraq, particularly America and Britain.
Despite this, it is my personal opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despot. His subjects had no right to habeas corpus in law, no right to an elected, uncorrupt Government, no right to free speech or religion, or even to expect fair treatment by the police, army or judiciary. In short, 18 of the fundamental articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of 30 were breached by Saddam Hussein or his government. In my view, anyone who denies these rights to it citizens is not worthy of governing his country. I believe that no-one or country is exempt from these principles, especially the USA. Therefore, I advocate the removal of any dictators, totalitarian rulers etc. If George Bush, or any leader, is complicit in any breaching any of these declarations, he is not fit to govern. The removal of leaders should firstly be by imposing sanctions and international pressure. If however, these methods fail, I do not believe that military action should not be considered.
However, it is easy to see why people oppose the war in Iraq, given the circumstances surrounding the war, the apparent following of American foreign policy, the potential loss of civilian life and the ulterior motives of many of the leaders who advocated the war. Because of this, the war in Iraq should be considered as one of Tony Blair’s failures, even if some regard it as a moral and ideological triumph of democracy over totalitarianism and oppression.