| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Blair Doctrine |
| 2004-03-05 |
| Waaaay too long to post the whole thing (even this severe-edit is long). Blair is the best spokesman in the world on this issue (and he is much better live than on paper). I wish GWB were as eloquent, but I know he holds the same sentiments and that’s why the thought of Kerry in the White House at this point in history scares me. I’m afraid he would exhibit the "naivete and dereliction" Blair describes. September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. When I spoke to the House of Commons on 14 September 2001 I said: "We know, that they [the terrorists] would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We know, also, that there are groups of people, occasionally states, who will trade the technology and capability of such weapons. It is time that this trade was exposed, disrupted, and stamped out. We have been warned by the events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning." From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon. Here were states whose leadership cared for no-one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any attempt external or internal to remove them and who, in their chaotic and corrupt state, were in any event porous and irresponsible with neither the will nor capability to prevent terrorists who also hated the West, from exploiting their chaos and corruption. So we came to the point of decision. Prime ministers don’t have the luxury of maintaining both sides of the argument. They can see both sides. But, ultimately, leadership is about deciding. My view was and is that if the UN had come together and delivered a tough ultimatum to Saddam, listing clearly what he had to do, benchmarking it, he may have folded and events set in train that might just and eventually have led to his departure from power. But the Security Council didn’t agree. Suppose at that point we had backed away. Inspectors would have stayed but only the utterly naïve would believe that following such a public climbdown by the US and its partners, Saddam would have cooperated more. He would have strung the inspectors out and returned emboldened to his plans. The will to act on the issue of rogue states and WMD would have been shown to be hollow. The terrorists, watching and analysing every move in our psychology as they do, would have taken heart. Here is the crux. It is possible that even with all of this, nothing would have happened. Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord. But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgement. And my judgement then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run. This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long. Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction. |
| Posted by:sludj |
| #3 Setting aside his domestic policies and EU phantasies, Blair is, indeed, the most eloquent speaker regards the WoT. Great read - and I've the link along to about 30 people. Thx sludj! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-5 9:29:41 PM |
| #2 Much love, respect, props, etc. goes out to Prime Minister Tony Blair for his continued steadfast support. It would have been so easy for him to back out. I won't forget it. |
| Posted by: Daniel King 2004-3-5 8:20:26 PM |
| #1 "Prime ministers don’t have the luxury of maintaining both sides of the argument." That's why Kerry can never be our prime minister. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-3-5 7:40:27 PM |