Is he Just a Fool?

Tony Blair has just announced to Parliament that British troops are to begin withdrawing from Iraq. This was supposed to be a move designed to show that Tony didn’t do everything George Bush wanted, a sign of independence that would help Labour in the polls. But since we are now - temporarily at least - the 51st state of America, the British withdrawal will be much slower than ministers and officials have previously suggested. This is because Bush insists we have to hang around to monitor the vastly over-stated threat from Iran, hence Tony's announcement in parliament that one of the key roles of the British troops would be "securing the Iran-Iraq border".

The number of British troops in southern Iraq will go down to something around 5,500 by May and Tony is "hopeful" that figure can be brought down below 5,000 by the end of the summer. It was originally going to be down to 4,000 by the end of May. Now we won’t get down to around 4,000 until the end of the year at best, although despite briefings to the press to that effect - presumably in order to make things look better than they are - Tony didn't mention this possibility in parliament which shows how uncertain the situation is.

Asked again if he would commit the government to an inquiry by privy counsellors, he hid behind the spurious need to protect British troops in Iraq, as if merely commiting to an inquiry would somehow have any effect on their safety. Interviewed on the BBC on Sunday, he had the brass neck to claim that there are two ways of looking at the war in Iraq, with the inference always being that the sensible way shows he was right. In the BBC interview, he made the incredible claim that silly little things like disbanding the Iraqi Army; de-Baathication; and a complete lack of preparation for "the morning after" were not really the issues.

Both then and in his announcement today, he predictably blamed the entire mess on the insurgents rather than admitting that a good deal of it is down to the idiots who didn't plan properly for the aftermath and didn't put enough troops in, thereby creating the situation in which the insurgents could operate. Yes Tony. There are two ways of looking at this, one has you looking like a war criminal who recklessly helped Bush invade Iraq even though it was illegal. The other one has you looking like a fool who recklessly helped Bush invade Iraq even though your advisers were telling you the US lack of preparation would mess it all up. Which one is it?

Comments

[dave]

Thanks for the re-read of the DSM.
A painful but necessary reminder of the enormity of this Folly.

"'There is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.'
Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's Foreign Policy Adviser.

» The Manning Memo "

I seem to remember the State Dept did prepare detailed plans, but these got chucked. Any info ?

My archives on old computer,no time now.

Having seen through at least some of the propaganda, I was opposed to that Invasion. When it arrived, I prayed that it would "succeed" .

Maintaining Public Order (Geneva ? Convention ) is an obligation on occupiers. This was neglected completely by the US side.

Medical assistance was minimal, with exceptions by individual medics of course. No planning at higher level-- hearts and minds...

One could go on. And on.

Even Colin Powell said "its their OIL", we have PSAs instead, a ripoff.

Old Henry Kissinger is a War Criminal, but no Fool.

Bush and Blair have achieved the status of being BOTH.

[Kiwi Dave]

Mick, I think that describing Blair as a fool lets him off the hook. The unpalatable truth is that we have been defeated in Southern Iraq and the Blair government must be held to account. I am astounded that the opposition have failed in their duty to the British people and not demanded a full enquiry into the conduct of the war. It would now seem that the only reason that the British Army stays in the desert is to hold open the US lines of communication to Kuwait - vital when they conduct their own withdrawal. This disaster will haunt us for the next 50 years and will doubtless further encourage the Jihadists in Afghanistan, the UK homeland and elsewhere.

[The 3rd Column]

Kiwi Dave is right. Branding Blair a fool will let him off the hook.

I'd like to see this poodle along with his handler, George cowboy Bush stand trial for war crimes.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Blair is no fool. Never has been. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Calculating, mendacious, unprincipled, opportunistic and many other things - yes.

But 'fool'? Certainly not.

[dave]

Start again.

War criminal we most of us agree on, no hooks let off 'ere, 3Col.

"Recklessness" is next. Did Blair think , ever, it could be pulled off successfully for the UK interest ? (I think here of Barbara Tuchmann -- The March of Folly. )

Before automatically saying Yes, Of Course, perhaps the UK national interest hardly exists for him as it does for us ? Maybe he assumes that whatever he does must coincide with it, a sort of magic thinking. Mad thinking.

So rather like a ball game, did they just kick the ball ahead and charge after it ? The magic-plan did not then resist contact with reality.

Chuck -- I'm not sure about the 'calculating' epithet, the others stand.

I first heard TB on the radio, probably 10 years ago. Radio better, TV distracts.
I was puzzled and surprised because he sounded curiously like an 18 year old, a Sixth former, boyish. Not much later I concluded that he did not seem to have 'thought' deeply.

Of course he is intelligent, a brilliant performer in the Commons at times -- even I have laughed --but certainly more accurate to state what we all know, clever people can also do foolish things.

So Chuck, if he knows exactly what he's doing, is what he's done in the UK , much of it negative, a deliberate plan for Creative Destruction ? A sort of Cultural Revolution going towards some end of "modernity" imagined by him ? Business-friendly is a mild description for his placing of businessfolk to regulate themselves and make policy. And fortunes. Imagine the economy without the City, too. Mega-Casinos to tax the poor, get them hooked, promoted by the Minister for Culture. You couldn't make it up .

So if in the case of Iraq he knew what he was doing, where are we ?

Maybe we come back to Neil Kinnock's damning comments on him.

Tony is impressed by wealth.
He's impressed by uniforms.
He's impressed by the intelligence services. The spooks.
He's impressed by the clergy.

Anybody as easily impressed as that should not be allowed near Power !

He appears oblivious to the human consequences of his actions, to the deaths which have followed him around, to the worsening quality of life which every brit visitor tells me of.

OK. He calculated how to get into power, and stuck in there.

I think he is seriously morally deficient , intellectually lightweight, but sane enough to stand trial..

As Roy Jenkins said " A first class politician, a second-class intellect".

Kiwi-- good speech the other day by John Key on the underclass. Hopeful sign. Who knows about 50years away ?

[Chuck Unsworth]

I'd agree with most of what Dave says here. In my view Blair has two imperatives, the first of which is (always has been) the unprincipled acquisition of money and power by whatever means come to hand.

The second is a fear bordering on paranoia that somehow the whole artificial edifice will all fall apart.

So Blair is on a relentless treadmill of his own making. He cannot step off, yet his horizon is no further than the other side of the cage wheel.

Consequences are not part of Blair's thought pattern. He has become so blinded by the immediate gratification rendered by immense power that he can not see that everything has a cost - to himself or to others. Financial costs are largely not his consideration. He is so insulated and detached from reality that moral and human costs do not impact on his thoughts in any way.

In short he is a man who is genuinely out of touch with reality. Whether that makes him pitiable or terrifying is maybe another discussion.

[dave]

Chuck
I see that you have also spent more than a few minutes puzzling over this man, and the, to us, surprising success he has achieved in keeping in power for so long.

Well, he's got the power, or rather had it, (soon ?) , but where is the money ? He worships and is impressed by it, but how much has he ?

It would indeed be a strange thought that he has done so much for the City and the big TNCs and the CBI, made the PFI gang so many hundreds of millions, or even more, for free.

Not completely impossible, at all. Perhaps he has not taken the precaution of hard cash for his services, and is relying on future 'earnings', based on implied promises, and his pension ? "Recklessly" .
The current joke about the US lecture circuit might even be a necessity to maintain a certain lifestyle and prominence. I guess, if he keeps his nose clean funds could be available to mount the Blair Foundation, and do the circuit for more. I reckon he is now scrabbling around for some important post, UN or mega- NGO or whatever, to keep in the public eye.

The 'Blair School of Government' at the LSE sank without trace. Well some trace, 'cos I remember it.

Maybe at last he is coming face to face with the consequences of his term in office, "the fear" as you put it, 'that the whole artificial edifice will come tumbling down" .

Like death, no-one, however powerful or rich, is spared.

So, no fool, but very foolish .

Neither of us are psychiatrists/psychologists, so we take longer to get there. As with Bush a serious case. Must look through my archives, some brit psys have done some work on him.

To answer your last question, pitiable or terrifying, we agree he's a little mad.

On the "terrifying" angle, I hope some¨MPs and General Dannatt are keeping a close eye.

[evden eve nakliyat]

thanks for your informations.very good informations..i will read all the time this blog.again thanks...

[sohbet]

thank you relly ok