Infernal Ramblings
A Malaysian Perspective on Politics, Society and Economics

Was Blair Bush's Puppet?

Written by johnleemk on 2:32:10 pm May 22, 2007.
Categories: ,

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as most people probably know by now, will be stepping down late next month. Blair, who was elected on an agenda of domestic policy reform, is now leaving office under a cloud of foreign policy — Iraq.

The biggest problem with Blair's image is that he was viewed as being too close to American President George W. Bush. The result is that Blair was stereotyped as Bush's poodle.

Now, like most right-thinking people around the world, I have a very low opinion of Bush and his coterie of neo-conservative advisors. However, I think it may be a tad unfair to call Blair nothing more than an American puppet.

It's unquestionable that the conduct of the war in Iraq, especially on the Americans' part, has been abominable. The Americans had no contingency plan for getting Iraq back on its feet, and the British were thus bogged down along with them due to their having joined the "coalition" of American allies.

But the question of whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place is not so clear to me. For humanitarian reasons, I think there is a strong case to be made for this having been the right war in the right place, possibly at the right time, conducted in the worst way imaginable.

That aside, it is tricky to determine whether Blair really was unduly influenced by Bush in foreign policy matters. Only God knows what is in man's thoughts and heart.

But from his actions, I don't think Blair was Bush's poodle. Yes, Blair probably made the wrong choice to invade Iraq, considering Bush's irrationality, and Blair was almost certainly influenced into doing this by Bush.

But, as Time noted after Blair announced his impending resignation, if Bush had not influenced Blair into going to war with Iraq, Blair probably would have done the reverse. It seems Blair has had a streak for the kind of interventionist "police the world" thinking that marked the Iraq invasion.

Moreover, Blair deserves credit for the relative success of the British forces in Iraq. The most violent areas there are under American control — the peaceful sectors are those controlled by the British and the Kurds.

It's very difficult to judge Blair's legacy at this point in time. (As one joke has it, when asked what influence the French Revolution has had on world history, the historian responded that it was too soon to tell.) But I would avoid characterising him as nothing more than a puppet of Bush's, because Blair seems to have had his own mind in determining how the British would conduct their invasion of the country, and at least in part may have been motivated by his own personal opinions, rather than Bush's.


If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.


Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "War in Iraq":
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged

Posted at 1:27:46 pm Aug 25, 2005
Do you support the war or are you against it?

I support the war because I believe it's good to topple dictators and totalitarian regimes. However, I think Bush and the American government screwed the war and its reputation by basing their argument for the war on WMDs, when no such things exist in Iraq. I also think that because of the limited number of troops in Iraq, the soldiers get picked off too easily. The resistance won't be able to hit back as easily if there are enough soldiers to kick their asses every time they attack.
Last five replies (3 comments not shown):
rajanr
Member
Posts: 1
IP Logged
Posted at 4:03:14 am Mar 7, 2007
The problems America faces right now in Iraq and to the lesser extend Afghanistan is probably less to do with the fact they were striving for the impossible, but rather the Bush administration messed up, big time.

<blockquote>
The Americans should work to encourage democracy to sprout up where it is already showing signs of possibly taking root, such as in Lebanon or Palestine, instead of trying to foster an artificial democracy where none is to be found, such as in Iraq.</blockquote>

The thing is if America had the same idea some 60 years ago, Japan would not be democratic. The problem with Iraq's polity isn't democracy - its the very country itself. Yes, having a strongman like Hussein can deal with many of the problems Iraqi democracy currently faces but that isn't much of a solution.

The problem with Iraq is that it have never been a proper nation - its three in one. Multiracialism may well be a good thing (I think it is), but if Iraqis don't want to handle it, forcing Iraq as a united polity is bound to fail.

Another problem is actually allowing European technocrats to influence the writing of the Iraqi constitution, and this can be clearly seen with proportional representation and an almost German style of federalism.

The current system of governance in Iraq today contributes to the problem because it encourages sectarian parties in such a climate as Iraq. Instead, if there were single-member constituencies, elections would become much more a local event.

At local level, people would be more interested in things that directly affect them - the economy, security, etc., and politicians more interested in them (you can't engage in rent-seeking to get unto a party list, after all, if there isn't one). More than that, if for example a Sunni is voting in a Sunni-majority constituency - ost of the choices may well be Sunni. So it does not necessary mean a Sunni party would win - a Sunni from a secular, non-sectarian party may win.

But I'm digressing.

The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan isn't war itself, but how it was conducted. It would seem America post-Vietnam War has a certain tendency to lose wars.
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged
Posted at 10:30:20 am Mar 7, 2007
The problems America faces right now in Iraq and to the lesser extend Afghanistan is probably less to do with the fact they were striving for the impossible, but rather the Bush administration messed up, big time.

Haha, that of course is the truth. The war was prosecuted in one of (if not) the worst possible ways.

The thing is if America had the same idea some 60 years ago, Japan would not be democratic. The problem with Iraq's polity isn't democracy - its the very country itself. Yes, having a strongman like Hussein can deal with many of the problems Iraqi democracy currently faces but that isn't much of a solution.

Thing is, the Japs had a history of being keen to adopt Western ideas when it was proven that they worked. Unlike many Asians, the Japanese had no hang-ups about adopting good ideas, no matter what their source was. (And in some cases, how good these ideas were is questionable - I still go "WTF" every time I see a picture of the Japanese surrendering to the Americans in top hats.)

The Iraqis, on the other hand, haven't exactly shown a predilection towards accepting foreign, especially non-Muslim (let alone Western) ideas and ideals. Of all the places in the world to plant democracy, Iraq was possibly one of the worst. If the US wanted to apply domino theory to the Middle East, it should have worked its way up, such as from Lebanon.

The problem with Iraq is that it have never been a proper nation - its three in one. Multiracialism may well be a good thing (I think it is), but if Iraqis don't want to handle it, forcing Iraq as a united polity is bound to fail.

Agreed.

Another problem is actually allowing European technocrats to influence the writing of the Iraqi constitution, and this can be clearly seen with proportional representation and an almost German style of federalism.

The current system of governance in Iraq today contributes to the problem because it encourages sectarian parties in such a climate as Iraq. Instead, if there were single-member constituencies, elections would become much more a local event.

I'm not well-informed about the influence of German technocrats on the Iraqi Constitution, but it seems to me that proportional representation, etc. are good ideas once the country and its institutions are off the ground. Forcing these things on them while they're just starting out as a democracy seems pretty silly, since these principles assume a history of the rule of law and a widespread understanding of how democracy works.

Single-member constituencies would also be a good idea, I think, although I understand the rationale for not having them. Whatever the case, it's clear that the present policies aren't working.

The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan isn't war itself, but how it was conducted. It would seem America post-Vietnam War has a certain tendency to lose wars.

Amen to Afghanistan. A half-amen to Iraq - I'm not wholly convinced the US should have gone in, but it wasn't that horrid an idea. What made it a horrid idea was the fact that Bush was doing it - it's almost impossible to name a single foreign policy success of his, aside from some sporadic victories early on in the "War on Terror".
azrael
Member
Posts: 9
IP Logged
Posted at 4:03:04 am Dec 20, 2007
I do support the War in Iraq, as well as Bush and his current administration. I think Bush has had a lot to deal with as a President, even with his father being a former one himself. Just 11 months into his Presidency, Bush had to deal with 9/11, initiate the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and later; Katrina, without much foreign help both politically, and financially.

The U.S., to me, is the sole country with the balls and the ability to police the world--and thank God they do.

As for the Iraq War, the U.S. & U.N. have been conducting "dialogue" with Saddam since the end of the first Gulf War, that is, from the end of that war till the invasion of Iraq, an astounding 12 years of "dialogue". Not to mention the dog and pony show played out by the Baath party of we have/don't have WMD's.

Also, just before the war, the international media were, on a daily basis, annoucing that oh, the inspectors are coming, the inspectors are coming, day in and day out--one would think that it wouldn't be hard to mobilise a stockpile of weapons around an area the size of California (approx. size of Iraq), furthermore having the home advantage, and, support from neighbouring states. So what were these inspectors to do? I don't know, but they said they didn't find anything. The definitely weren't investigators, just inspectors, and I don't think they could have done the P.I work even if they wanted to. They said they couldn't find it, and everyone assumes there were none in the first place. Would it be logical to assume that? Maybe. But let's say my wife misplaced my keys the other day, but doesn't remember where she placed it, or maybe was just being cheeky and hiding it away from me. I searched all over the house, the garden, the car, but I just couldn't find it. Now, I couldn't find it, but that doesn't mean it never existed in the first place.

So along came the U.S., saying we're here to enfore U.N. Resolution 1441 once and for all--and of course you know what the French, Germans and Russians said.

Just my two cents.

p/s: this man says it better, and with more authority. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053>
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 949
IP Logged
Posted at 1:32:23 pm Dec 20, 2007
The problem with that logic is that we know of countries such as North Korea and Iran which pose even more plausible threats than Iraq did in 2003, but we aren't doing anything militarily about them. (A recent intelligence report shows Iran has halted work on developing nuclear weapons, but also shows that they were working on them.) To date, no evidence has been found that Saddam was getting anywhere close to a working nuke (unlike Iran and North Korea).

Also note that North Korea setting off a nuclear war would be far more devastating than Iraq, despite oil. They would plausibly destroy South Korea, one of the most prosperous East Asian economies, and disrupt China, also a major economic player. America also has bases in South Korea, whereas their only major military presence in the Middle East in 2003 was Saudi Arabia.

The most d***ing indictment of the Bush administration in this area, though, is their failure to plan for mopping up after the war, and the evidence that they were actively looking for a reason to take out Saddam, and WMDs just happened to be the most convenient and plausible (if ultimately false) reason.
azrael
Member
Posts: 9
IP Logged
Posted at 9:30:09 pm Dec 20, 2007
My take on North Korea is that other militarily powerful countries like Russia and China should collaborate to keep it in check rather than solely rely on the auspices of the apparently bottomless well of U.S. money and goodwill to police the world. But they don't. Why? Might I suggest that maybe they want to curry favour with the Democratic (what a joke) People's Republic of Korea to polarise the geopolitic landscape more (taking into account Russian and Chinese sabre-rattling of late; Russian TU-25 bombers flying suspiciously close to Britain and Sweden, Chinese diesel sub popping up in the middle of a U.S. naval group exercise in the Pacific.)

Yes, the U.S. does police the world, but yes, the U.S. also prioritises what it does and also thinks of its own interests very much like what every other country is does (take care of it's own interests).

This man, Bill Whittle, a pilot, gives a very interesting historical perspective on how previous wars measure up to the present day <http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html>

As for the mop-up I would really have loved to seen the influx of brotherly Arab/Middle Eastern assistance into a state that was once ruled by a despot, but no, these oil-rich, gut-lacking states are too busy condemning the U.S., sending fighters into the north to oppose American troops and playing up a victimised rhetoric.


Latest:
Personality Cults Come With the Territory
Popular:
Personality Cults Come With the Territory

Most Recently Read

  1. Raja Nazrin, the Only Malaysian Man With Balls
  2. Girl, Your Marginal Benefit Is Far Greater Than Your Marginal Cost
  3. Growing the Malaysian Economy
  4. Realising an Independent Nation in Malaysia
  5. The Lina Joy Case
  6. Segregated Schools: Why Vernacular Schools and Malay Boarding Schools Harm Malaysia
  7. The Utility of Freedom of Speech
  8. Legalising Nudity?
  9. Global Warming, True or False, Has No Bearing on the Environmental Question
  10. Why No Malaysian Scientists?
Latest active forum topics
Quoth the webserver...
There are two tragedies in life: one is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it.
— George Bernard Shaw
Poll
Sorry, only registered users may vote. Please register or login.

There are currently no polls running.