A critical appraisal by Dr.

Ignatius Gwanmesia as to whether

Britain’s Invasion of Iraq was necessary. Tony Blair: Genius or
Villain?

Tony Blair: Genius or Villain?

A non-partisan analysis by Dr Ignatius Gwanmesia, on Tony Blair’s conviction to

invade Iraq.

This analysis is set against the backdrop of;

– The carnage of the indiscriminate and callous bombing of the world Trade Centre
(9/11) by alleged disciples of Osama-bin Laden and Sadam Hussein. Hayden et
al, (2006, p. 32); Burke, (2003, p. 213)
– President Bush’s foreign policy objective of “the pre-emptive confronting of
rogue nation-states that pose an imminent threat to the United States” Conley,
(2005, p. 4)
– An Iraq where leaving Sadam in power after the Gulf war was seen as an
unfinished job” PD, (1997, p. 625).
– A world where the daily life circumstances and plight of Iraqis were, and are
sensationally making global headlines. Williams, (2008)
– A world where Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden;( perceived by the West as
al Qaeda leader) were perceived in the West as perpetrators of global terrorism.
Conley, (2005, p. 3).
– A world where by default rather than consent, America in particular and Britain in
general have self-assumed the role of global vigilantes and policemen. Conley,
(2005, p. 4)

Against this politically complex backdrop, Tony Blair; convinced that what he was
doing was rights” led Britain to partnership America in invading Iraq. But was he
right? Inspective of your political orientation and prejudices, an implicit inside into
Tony Blair’s reasons to invade Iraq will only be gained with a subscription to the
reality that Tony is not only a man of his conviction, but more so, that while the Brits
have ‘sight’, Blair had ‘vision.’ Watching rational human beings losing their wits in
demonstrations against the war; with the media supplying enough and continuous
volatile material to keep the protest going, I was compelled to ponder how many of
the mob members had actually rationally questioned their personal and implicit
motives for their participation?

Similarly, days before Tony Blair’s appearance before the inquiry committee to justify
his decision to partnership George in the Iraq invasion, the British populace was
engendered into hysteria by sensationalised media report; to the extent of redirecting
people on where to buy tickets for the supposedly ‘war crime trial’. Needless to say
Tony Blair’s robust defence of his actions subsequently stirred the gullible into
rational consciousness. Day after Blair’s appearance before the inquiry committee;
for the execution that never was, the sea seem so calm, no one will think a mighty
tempest was threatening to engulf all who had attempted to sail on it.

Now back to basics, was Blair right to invade Iraq? To say opinions are highly
polarised will be a gross understatement. From human Rights campaigns, anti-war
activism through mob-followers to those who believed that George Bush was
manipulating Blair; everyone seem to be convinced they could provide the most
convincing perspective to account for Blair’s action. Now what exactly is Blair’s
argument for the desert adventure?

"I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know
now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances when
the threat was worse... I think we live in a completely new security environment
today. I thought that then, I think that now.” Blair’s declared at the inquiry.

Even now, Blair ‘genuinely believes’ that the end justified the means. Set against
the backdrop of 9-11, the July bombings in London, and the current nuclear tension
in the Middle East, doesn’t Blair’s vision stir our hitherto short-sightedness?

My argument for Blair’s vision is founded on his very words; “What’s important is not
to ask the March 2003 question, but to ask the 2010 question. Supposing we had
backed off this military action, supposing we had left Saddam and his sons, who
were going to follow him, in charge of Iraq – people who used chemical weapons,
caused the death of over a million people The permutation in attempting to answer
this question would be endless.”
While most arguments against the war are grounded on the status quo; and media-
induced opinions, with hindsight (the chemical attack of the marsh people, the
London Bombings, 9/11), what will be the presenting circumstance of world security
if Sadam and his sons were significant players in contemporary world politics?

Was Blair a liar as many anti war campaigner’s claim?

On the presumption of innocence rather than guilt by probability, how can society
convict Blair for seeking to pervert the course of justice? If Blair was a liar, then
grievously has he held on to his lies, and grievously did Sadam suffer the
consequence, but Blair is an honourable man. Honourably is he prepared to defend
and die for his conviction and belief. As a defiant Tony Blair told the grieving families
of British soldiers killed in Iraq; he could not apologize for the invasion because he
believed “it was the right thing to do”; I understand for these families, it is a time
of immense grief and anguish, but I can't say what I don't believe; I don't believe it
was wrong to get rid of Saddam." I don’t believe it was wrong to get rid of Sadam
translates into a hypothesis based on a conspiracy theories

Conspiracy Theory – Blair’s Secret Agenda.

The principal arguments for the invasion of Iraq was supposedly Sadam’s elusive
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Radnedge, (2005, p. 5) and the threats they
posed to the world especially to Britain and America, Hayden et al., (2006); Conley,
(2005). The mystery about the invasion is that, without any circumstantial evidence
about the existence of these weapons Britain and America were bent on the invasion
irrespective. My conspiracy theory is premised on an invasion that was instigated by;

– The capitalist quest to access Iraq’s rich oil reserves. Williams, (2008, p. 3)
– The determination to avenge the callous atrocities of 9/11. Conley, (2005, p. 4)
– The need to complete the unfinished task of the Gulf War by eliminating Sadam
Hussein. Radnedge, (2008, p. 4).

The Oil Conspiracy

Although the plight of ordinary Iraqis under a so-called “notorious criminal and
murderous tyrant” Winnock, (1997, p. 577) constituted one of the primary charges
against Sadam, the conspiracy theory will suggest that, under a world that “is
essentially capitalist”, Bardhan, (2006, p. 1) Britain would never have invaded Iraq
solely for the humanitarian reasons of alleviating the impoverishment or repression
of Iraqis indigenes. Accused of activism, yet implicit about his conviction about the
motives for Britain and America infringing the sovereignty of an independent state,
Tony Ben for the antiwar coalition alleged during parliamentary debate that “oil not
the poor Iraqis was the essence of the invasion.” Ben, (1997). My conspiracy theory
for risking and sacrificing British and American lives in the invasion is primarily
consensual with Tony Ben’s war-for- oil argument. From a legal perspective, the
rationale underpinning the oil conspiracy hypothesis is based on the precedent set
by British and American actions in Iran in 1951. In a similar circumstance, when
Premier Mohamed Mossadegh of Iran’s decided to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company; thereby threatening the latter’s economic interest in this rich resource,
“the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a decisive role in
engineering a coup that overthrew the Massadegh regime” Bennett, (1995, p. 283).
Akin to Iraq which was invaded in violation of UN’s rejection, the coup ignored UN’s
rejection. In the new oil agreement that followed, 40% of the shares were assigned
to British petroleum and 40% to United States firms” Bennett, (1995, p. 283). From
an economic and capitalist rather than a moral perspective, the necessity for the
invasion could be argued on the grounds that Blair wanted Iraq’s oil and
reconstruction contracts after the invasion.

Revenge Agenda

According to Halliday, (2002, p. 24), “the incredulity of the callous and indiscriminate
bombing of the World Trade Centre was a global atrocity” Halliday. Yes, from a
British perspective the globality of the bombing could be argued on the basis that
innocent Britains constituted part of the 9/11 global casualties. Circumstantially or
just being scapegoat, with Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden consensually,
judged and found guilty as either directly or indirectly responsible for the
unscrupulous act that has partisanly been described by Burke, (2003, p. 213) as
“wanton act of terrorism”, it would have defied political rationality if Britain and
America responded passively. As befits a president whose domestic policies were
increasingly judged as unpopular, coalescing with Britain to invade Iraq could be
argued to constitute a timely diversion as well as a means of giving Blair’s
premiership and the Bush president-ship the image of resoluteness when the
securities of the states are endanger. There is plausible logic to use this argument to
explain President Bush’s decision to articulate a new foreign policy from deterrent “to
pre-emptively confronting rogue nation-states that pose an imminent threat to the
United States; tyrannical regimes that constituted an ‘axis of evil’ stretching from
Iraq, Iran and North Korea” Conley, (2005, P. 4). While it is irrefutable that America
in particular and Britain generally were victims of 9/11, opinions are highly polarised
as to whether invading Iraq was the most appropriate response or whether the
invasion carried overtones of ego-aggrandisement for the British and American
leaders. If this was not the case, then there is reason to question why, given that
terrorism is “a multifaceted problem requiring a long-term solution and collaborations
among governments worldwide” Hayden et al., (2006, p. xiii), Tony Blair single-
minded decided to ally with Bush in the invasion at the “expense of alienating
European allies like France, Germany and Russia”
www.socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/cgi. Arguing from the economic and political
perspective of the benefit to Britain of consulting with her European partner actions
whose ramifications could be far-reaching, Tony Ben for the anti-war coalition argued
that; “within the global system where Britain stands to gain more from a multilateral
relationship with these countries rather than any unilateral liaison with America,
invading Iraq will be “a gross economic miscalculation if not folly” PD, (1997, p. 577).
If my conspiracy theory holds, then compared to the multilateral relationship, the
unilateral liaison with Bush to avenge British loses in 9/11 bombing while
simultaneously getting rid of Sadam (the primary obstacle to accessing Iraq’s oil)
seemed more attractive. Within a global economy where Britain and America
enviously wanted Iraq’s oil; and where an extremely nationalistic Sadam was
flaunting his determination and capability reserve Iraq’s oil exclusively for the Iraqis,
it could be logically argued that the events of 9/11 constituted a god-sent excuse for
Britain and America to inflict their colonial and or imperial policies Iraq. While the
hysteria of 9/11 reigned, “any excuse, was excuse-enough to justify an invasion
irrespective.” Preston and Kite, (2006, p. 1) and Blair was not to be left out.
 Blair and the unfinished Gulf Adventure

Many have suggested that Iraq would have been a much accommodating place if
only the allies had gone all the way and eliminated Sadam during the Gulf War.
Couple with his identification with Osama bin Laden and the atrocities of 9/11,
including a catalogue of alleged gross human right violations in Iraq, there is
plausible reason to infer that Britain had to go after him. The combination of these
arguments posits the invasion necessary since in his own words Tony Blair declared,
"Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your
call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our
country." Grice, (2007).

While with hindsight Tony Blair maybe vilified for embarking on an invasion that
subjectively seemed unnecessary, Williams, (2008, p. 2), it is worth remembering
that all the British political parties through their leaders fully supported the invasion.
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/21/iraq.iraq. Nonetheless, as for the argument
that he led Britain into an unnecessary and costly invasion, some school of thoughts
argue that Tony Blair’s decision to engage Britain in the invasion of Iraq might have
been sympathetically received if the then Prime Minister had been transparent-
enough to declare that “oil and maybe revenge for 9/11 rather than the elusive
weapon of mass destruction instigated the invasion.” Radnedge, (2008, p. 4). While
this argument may seem on the extreme, it is not inconceivable under globalisation
where the capitalist ideology to exploit is the norm rather than the exception.
Bardhan, (2006, p. 1). As precedent, Western nations have always exploited their
colonies’ resources to sustain their industries; policies that are still being perpetrated
either directly or indirectly especially by multinational corporations under
globalisation. Thus Iraq is not an exception to this occurrence. For the anti-war
campaigners, only Jose Lius Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain saw beyond the
excuse of weapons of mass destruction when he asserted that, “The colonial
invasion of Iraq and the ugliest of lies of the lie machine that propagated and justified
these barbarous acts will forever remain among the greatest and unpardonable
crimes against humanity." Hassan, (2005). Similarly, while the antiwar coalition made
much of the undemocratic and almost Sadam-like policy approach of Tony Blair in
seeming to decide what he thought good for Britain, they failed to realise that
democracy can never be comprehensive. If every British citizen were allowed to
decide on matters of foreign policy, there would be anarchy everywhere with the risk
of antagonising everyone. Moreover, democracy could hardly be the panacea to all
Iraq’s problems. The reality about invading Iraq is that while humanitarians, antiwar-
coalitionists, and partisan politicians may vilify Tony Blair for despotically taking
Britain into war, they overlook the implicit reality that by making Blair Prime Minister
and supreme commander of armed forces, we democratically delegated our right of
consent to him. Therefore, maybe with the conviction that he was serving our best
interest and that of Britain he used the consent we bestowed on him to lead Britain to
invade Iraq. In his own words Tony Blair declared, “I did what I thought right for my
Country.” Grice, (2007). Yes, as befits Her Majesty’s high sea buccaneer, Tony Blair
went all the way to plunder Iraqis oil and reconstruction contracts for the British. Akin
to Tony Blair, my justification for the invasion is that, with time and the ever-
worsening global thirst for cheap energy, the British may one day thank their access
to cheap energy to the vision of Tony Blair. Moreover for the activists of the antiwar
coalition like Tony Ben and Ann Clwyd, MP for Cyon Valley, who vehemently
denounced the invasion as “an infringement of Iraq’s national sovereignty” Ben, and
Clwyd, (1997, p. 578), they seemed to have overlooked the fact that Sadam never
showed any respect for national sovereignty when he invaded Kuwait. Moreover,
under our contemporary climate of globalisation, “the notion of sovereignty is
perceived as an anachronism” McChesney, (1999).

The reality about the necessity of the Iraq invasion is that under a British leader
whose “style was not to encourage his policy preferences to be questioned, or call
for nuanced assessments of possible consequences”, Steel, (2008, p. 2), the implicit
rationales underpinning his decisions will always be questmatics. Similarly, in the
process of evaluating the necessity of Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, the
complex interplay of political and economic interest will always be manipulated to
take the appropriate form that serves the vested interests of the evaluators.

Selective Blame?
From another perspective, dare I dare asked what is it about Iraq that was so wrong;
and so repugnant that the British society is prepared to almost unconditionally accept
the continuous stream of bodies returning from Afghanistan; yet can’t bare the
limited lost in Iraq? Similarly, pertaining to the seemingly unholy alliance or the, Blair-
Bush conspiracy’, where is the rationale behind denouncing the indiscriminate cross-
national ravages of 9-11, just to turn and accuse leaders of the victim-nations from
adopting a pre-emptied foreign policy? Irrespective of whether they were right or
not, ‘isn’t prevention better than cure?’ Should America and Britain have rested on
their haunches and waited to be bombed again before they take action to protect
their ‘living-dead?” In contemporary global politics, the concept of deterrent
suggests that if you want peace you must prepare for war. Much better, if you want
security; you must initiate pre-empted action to prevent the like of 9-11. To date,
there is plausible reason to suggest that the relative stability enjoyed by global
citizen has been derived from actions of the type of Blair and Bush in Iraq.

Before you accuse me of supporting the war, I should say I in no way clamour for the
lost of innocent lives for economic reasons. Additionally, I do not subscribe to
subjective hysteria engender by media socialisation whereby mob-rule becomes the
dominant ideology in governance. In fact I remember reading some of the anti-war
placards; ‘Blair dictator; Blair where is our democracy; Blair Blood on your
Hands’ etc.) Accusing Blair of being a dictator; worse than Sadam Hussein, confirms
the extremities of our ignorance about the minutia of democracy. First of all, except
in a utopian world, democracy is never absolute. Indeed, by electing Blair as Prime
Minister through a supposedly democratic ballot, the British delegated their powers
to him to deputise on their behalf on matters including foreign policy decisions.
Consequently, decisions taken by the Prime Minster can never be perceived as
devoid of citizen’s consent. The inference is that if Blair took Britain to war, he did so
with our consent and on our behalf. If he was wrong, we were wrong.

In a world where sovereignty was normative, openly declaring that Britain was
invading Iraq for the oil would have instigated mass hysteria and cries of imperialism.
However, using any other covert excuse to achieve the same end is what modern
international relations and politics is all about; and Tony Blair was, and is a genius at
this. Isn’t it surprising how little the British are thankful for the reconstruction
contracts and oil that Britain is now harvesting from Iraq compared to the mass
employment and economic afflictions sapping away the blood from the British
economy? I know they say it takes a great man to say I am sorry; it would make a
great nation for Britain to say ‘Tony Thank You for your Visionary.’ Compared to
those who judge Tony Blair in abstentia, I was privileged to be invited to discuss
issues of policies on Child Trafficking with him when he was Prime Minister. The
critique that I am, I was amazed at his readiness to listen and learn from whomever
and whenever the opportunity arose. Not only is the Blair I know very consultative,
he is equally responsive. Most importantly, he is a man of CONVICTION and he will
die defending his believes. His vision was to do what he thought and believed was
right for Britain. Britain saw it differently. The conflict therefore was between Blair’s
vision and the British short-sightedness. Now that he has led us into his visionary
world, isn’t it time we accept our narrow-mindedness and joint the visionary train? If
we can accept the bodies returning from a seemingly endless war ‘process’ in
Afghanistan, why can’t we accept and accommodate the limited losses of the ‘event’
of the invasion of Iraq?

While many may judge me as partisan, I rather say that I am amongst the privileged
view that is controversially rational-enough to resist media socialisation and to judge
Blair’s policies from an objective perspective. How do you judge him?

Comments to Dr Ignatius Gwanmesia antichildtraffic@yahoo.co.uk Tel: 07951

622137 United Kingdom

Bibliography

Bardhan, P. (2006) Does Globalisation Help the World’s Poor? Washington:

Scientific American Magazine.

Ben, T. (1997) In question to Fatchett, D.; Foreign and Commonwealth Office during
Parliamentary debates on Iraq. Nov. 10th 1997. Parliamentary debates: Official report
sixth series. London: The Stationery Office.

Bennett, L. (1995) International Organizations: Principles and Issues. London:

Prentice-Hall International Ltd.

Burke, J. (2003) Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror. London: I.B Taurus and Co.
Ltd.

Conley, R. S. (2005) Transforming the American Polity: The Presidency of George

Bush and the War on Terrorism. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc
Halliday, F. (2002) Two Hours that Shook the World. London: Saqi Books

Hassan, G. (2005) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a premeditated

murderous act of aggression. London: Online journal, Special Report.

Hayden, P. et al., (2006). America’s War on Terror. Cornwall: MPG Books LTD.

Grice, A. (2007) The Legacy: Tony Blair, Prime Minister, 1997-2007. London: The
Independent

McChesney, R. W. (1999) Profit over People. Neo-liberalism and global order.

London: Turnaround Publisher Services Ltd.

PD, (Parliamentary Debates )(1997) Official Report Sixth Series. Vol. 300. London:
The Stationery Office.

Radnedge, A. (2008) As Bush boast, Brown is quiet. London: Metro. March, 19th
2008.

Williams, D. (2008) Iraq: The Calm before the Storm. New York: American Chronicle.

Winnock, D. (1997) Iraq in Parliamentary debates Official Reports Sixth Series.

London: The Stationer Office.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/21/iraq.iraq

www.socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/cgi,