Iraq is not just Blair's dark legacy: it defines the future

My interviews with key figures reveal a Prime Minister scared before the war, then in despair over America's colossal blunders

When they open up Tony Blair, they will find Iraq engraved on his heart. But for Iraq he would be leaving Downing Street able to make an unambiguous claim to be one of the most successful world leaders of his time and one of the most successful British Prime Ministers of all time. But for Iraq, he would probably not be leaving Number 10 at all in 10 days' time.

For the past year, I've been interviewing key players in that decision and many others for a three-hour series for Channel 4 about Blair's decade in Downing Street. My witnesses to history are senior members of the cabinet, his closest aides at No 10, civil servants, generals, diplomats and crucial players from abroad such as Condi Rice, the US Secretary of State, and Andy Card, Chief of Staff to George Bush. These are the people who can really tell us what went on inside government because they were really there when the critical decisions were made. There is much more to both this government and this series than Iraq, but neither friend nor foe of Blair disputes that it was the single most significant act of his period in power.

(snip)
The failure to seal the borders and to secure order in the cities allowed Iraq to descend into a hellish combination of terrorist insurgency and sectarian violence. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was persuaded by Blair to become his special envoy in Baghdad, depicts a Prime Minister plunged into despair by the ensuing carnage and chaos. He tells us that Blair would cry: 'What on earth are the Americans up to?' as Iraq descended into carnage. 'There were moments of throwing his hands in the air, "What can we do?" He was tearing his hair.'

Blair's despair became so profound that, according to Mandelson, he was ready 'to walk away from it all'. In the spring of 2004, he came extremely close to resigning as Prime Minister.

Blair invested a huge amount of his faith in his capacity to influence the President. He discovered too late that Bush was only nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Iraq enterprise. A stark picture emerges of Bush making promises and giving assurances to Blair which were not delivered because Iraq was being run by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, neither of whom was very interested in listening to their junior British ally.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2104873,00.html

I think the UK's fuck up with regard to Iraq is probably the major reason why Scotland is now appealing before the EU and the UN for independence. I'm sure similar things are in store for us. Remember, many blamed Jimmy Carter for recession and stagflation in the '70's, but these economic maladies were really a hangover after years of unsustainable defense spending on the Viet Nam war.

It's not up to either the EU or the UN, anyway - it's up to the Scots, if they can agree on it. So far, the Scottish parliament hasn't held a majority of MSPs in favour of independence, so they haven't even held a referendum on it, let alone won one. And the wish for independence goes back far before 2002.

And I'm not quite sure what the UN or EU could do about it if they did.

They have increased the number of Scottish Nationalist members in their devolved parliament; but there still isn't enough local support at present to take such a drastic step. If it ever did reach that point, there would certainly be negotiations with England before taking the case to any other body.

Resentment by some Scots of UK rule, and desire for independence, go back an extremely long way - remember "Braveheart" and the various old songs about "Scots wha hae with Wallace bled", etc. The Scottish Nationalist Party has been a significant political force for a long time. If there is anything in recent political history that may have increased Scottish pro-independence sentiment, it's probably the influence of Thatcherism and the poll-tax, which were imposed at the hands of English Tory voters on a strongly anti-Tory Scotland in the 1980s. In any case, the movement is nowhere near strong enough to be likely to lead to independence in the near future; and it has little to do with Iraq - English citizens also were and are overwhelmingly against the Iraq war.

he would not have been remembered favourably even if not for Iraq. He is known here for his ultra-managerialist policies (as I've said in another thread, imagine NCLB applied not only to education but many other aspects of life); some worryingly right-wing economic policies; restrictions on civil liberties (though we're not the 'police state' sometimes implied on DU!); and a great deal of spin at the expense of substance. His government has also been involved in some rather petty sleaze over House of Lords appointments.

He will be remembered on the positive side for one outstanding achievement - the Good Friday Agreement leading to relative peace in Northern Ireland - and he is at least not Maggie Thatcher. However, it's not true that if not for Iraq 'he would be leaving Downing Street able to make an unambiguous claim to be one of the most successful world leaders of his time and one of the most successful British Prime Ministers of all time'. He would be remembered as a very flawed and mediocre PM, who had dragged his party to the right of some previous Tory governments, and who kept getting re-elected mainly because the opposition was even worse.