Is Blair Guilty?

Down to business:

I've always been of the opinion that Blair was guilty of lying (even before he lied about WMD) and I've always been a typically liberal anti-war type, not willing to believe that war in Iraq was ever particularly justified.

Over the years however, I've learned a lot about Blair's reasoning for going to war, and he's always  consistent, and always dodges the question about 'did he lie?' by arguing his moral reasoning for committing British troops.

What do you think? Does his moral reasoning pardon him for supporting false claims about WMD? After all, Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds, oppressed and totured his own people, was aggressive towards both Iran and Kuwait, and would have certiainly taken the opportunity to buy nuclear technology from Noth Korea, Pakistan and India (AQ Khan etc.) or rogue elements in Russia and China if given the chance.

Saddam was a limited threat, one who was for the most part contained, so was the decision to remove him the right one? What have we been left with instead?

For the thinking person, one who does not have a definite opinion either way, these are troubling questions, because our democracy is generally regarded to pursue action by a consensus of the majority, and in this case, we appear to have been willingly hi-jacked by a smart talking lawyer with a penchant for trickery and deception. Like the devil, can Blair ever be stopped from doing as he wishes?

In fact, I've never met anyone who was pro-war in Iraq. That's the rather strange thing about it. Moderates and liberals we all are apparently, but when one looks into the real reasoning for going to war in Iraq, it actually appears to be rather sound.

We didn't have to go, we didn't particularly want to go, but if we hadn't gone, it would have caused a huge rift with the Americans, whose policy schizophrenia (aka 'American Exceptionalism') has got them caught between total isolationism and imperial world dominance. It's uncomfortable for them as a pseudo 'unwilling superpower' to have to defend freedom and democracy in an old complex world, that's beyond their sight and beyond their immediate reach, and how much more dangerous would they be without the steadying and guiding hand of the UK, an 'old world' power, empire, and friend to the middle east.

All in all, it was probably the toughest decision any head of state would have to make, particularly for an elected politician whose attained his position through intellectual merit, hard work and unparralled enthusiasm and energy  ie Blair, rather than being born into power or having it conferred by 'divine right'.

We do however, as strange as it seems, still have an Empire though, a Queen, a Commonwealth, and in fact, the crown has rather more historical context in which to put our 'intervention' in Iraq into.

The UK public is generally sold on the idea of it being a 'war', but that's not really the case. It was an intervention to stop Saddam becoming powerful again, and removing him was the final blow to a country who had been starved, beaten, jailed and rattled for 15 years, and it only makes sense in terms of the century old conflict between the British Empire and Iraq, the centuries old emnity betwen the French Empire and the British Empire and the new struggle between the Euro Zone and the American Empire for global economic dominance.

Remember Saddam's decision to only sell Oil for Euros? Undermining the US Dollar as the reserve currency of the world after Bretton Woods? Saddam sided with the Euro against he US Dollar, and the UK, not being part of the Euro, had to make a choice whether to support the Dollar or the Euro. We chose to back the Dollar, and it's no wonder France wouldn't support us in Iraq.

Supplying Saddam with billions of Euros or Dollars was out of the question, but no wonder that the French and the Americans fight like cat and dog. The fact is that the Americans are still trying to hold onto their dominance even though the Euro-Zone has surpassed them as the number-one world economy, and thus the new super-power. For all the talk of the rise of China, the facts speak for themselves.

In fact, if anything the French ought to have gone into Iraq, as the Euro can only really be underwritten in Dollars.

Am I straying from the point? I don't think Blair's guilty of doing anything more than bending the truth. He's done too much good, is pushing too many worthy agendas to be locked up. He's relinquished state power, did not actively pursue the role of European President and has shown his capacity to be humble in the face of great power, so I say no. Blair is as guilty as any of us for our vanity, self-interest or hubris, but should he be tried as a war criminal? No, I don't believe so.