Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, and Christopher Hitchens, the former man of principle, put Hitchens Watch to sleep with their theological debate several months ago. Despite their philosophical differences, Hitchens has continued to defend Blair for his participation in wars of imperial aggression in the Muslim world. Before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, Hitchens recently wrote, “the wealth and people of Iraq were the abused private property of Saddam Hussein and his crime family.” The contempt that the world has for Blair somehow escapes Hitchens’s comprehension, now that Hussein is gone:
“How can anybody with a sense of history not grant Blair some portion of credit for this? And how can anybody with a tincture of moral sense go into a paroxysm and yell that it is he who is the war criminal? It is as if all the civilians murdered by al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be charged to his account. This is the chaotic mentality of Julian Assange and his groupies.”
Putting aside the fact that no one at Hitchens Watch has slept with Assange, Blair should also be granted “some portion of credit” for what has gone wrong in Iraq. According to The Lancet, the esteemed British medical journal, more than 600,000 Iraqis died between the invasion in March 2003 and June 2006.
Compounding these horrifying statistics, British pollsters at Opinion Research Business calculated in 2008 that more than one million Iraqi civilians had died since the war began.
Even if the fanboys and Hitch hens accept these numbers, they may claim that these unfortunate Iraqis would have perished at the hands of Hussein, anyway. Notwithstanding the terror of the former regime, I would advise the fanboys and Hitch hens to consult the article in The Lancet: “From January, 2002, until the invasion in 2003, virtually all deaths in Iraq were from non-violent causes.”
Iraqis who have murdered their compatriots would never have had an opportunity to exploit without the destabilizing effects of the Anglo-American operation on their country. So, why did Blair join President George W. Bush in this destructive enterprise? Did he do so for moral reasons, as Hitchens claims?
I would like to thank Mark for sharing an April 19 article from the British newspaper The Independent. In the article, reporter Paul Bignell contrasted the public statements of the British government with the documentary record. Shortly before the war began, Blair officially commented:
“Let me just deal with this oil thing because…the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons…”
British Petroleum, wildlife’s best friend, also denied a strong interest in Iraqi oil. Months before this official denial, however, the British Foreign Office met with BP at least five times. In the minutes of one meeting, the Foreign office noted:
“Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous…”
The memorandum from a similar meeting acknowledged that the Foreign Office “was determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”
Actually, it is not news that Blair participated in an unwarranted intervention under false pretenses. As an issue, weapons of mass destruction did not weigh on Blair’s mind at all. I would urge all visitors to Hitchens Watch to read Barry M. Lando’s Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, From Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Pages 220-221 covered the Washington visit of Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in 2002. In his memorandum to Blair, Dearlove observed:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy….It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.”
Since Blair realized that Iraq presented no military threat to the international community, oil had to be his chief motivation. Hitchens must know this.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
