The “If you had known then what you know now” question, again

Tony Blair is asked the hindsight question about the Iraq war again in an interview with The Times today (pay wall).

Philip Webster: Would you have been prepared to take Britain to war if you had known then what you know now, i.e. there were no WMD – you used that as the basis for the UN approach – could you have done it without, could you possibly have led Britain to war in those circumstances?

[pause]

Tony Blair: Well, you know, I’ve been over this a thousand times. The reason was the breach of the UN resolutions – he was in breach of them – look you know I take the view he was a threat, but in essence the reason why it became very tough was really not to do with Saddam, it was to do with what happened afterwards and likewise with the fall of the Taleban in Afghanistan.

I mean the truth is what got really difficult, far more difficult than anyone imagined, was when you got external factors joining up with internal factors to try and cause chaos and instability; by use of terrorism, by suicide bombers, by, you know, roadside bombs and, you know, still the question in my mind is “well, if you knew they were going to do these things, is it worth the fight?” and my answer to that is, unless you’re prepared to give in to that, then it is, because both in respect of Afghanistan and in respect of Iraq the fact is the people did want a democratic form of government and they do – so why shouldn’t they have it?

This was the question in answer to which Blair got into a spot of difficulty with Fern Britton two years ago, about which I wrote here, here and here.

David Miliband gave a different sort of answer, equally right, last night.

Update: David Cameron was asked the same question, and gave a different answer.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband
• Cameron's possibly winning position

• JohnJustice

  The fact that in the event no WMD were found is immaterial to the case for war as I’ve explained many times here. You just don’t get the argument or rather don’t WANT to get the argument.

  Presenting the intelligence gathered by the intelligence services to show (in response to media pressure) what it was about the intelligence that convinced you there was a WMD threat is not distorting the evidence or deceiving Parliament. None of the intelligence chiefs objected to what went into the dossier.

• Deafbutnotdumb

  I can stand proud that I protested against the war in the march through London.

  But, that aside, The general consenus around the various forums prior to the Iraqi invasion that the aftermath would be chaos and confusion leading to a greater terrorist presence in the middle east and beyond. Iran would have a greater influence all the time troops were present. Energy supplies and oil supplies would be disrupted. The date of the invasion was reasonable accurate against the number of ships booked to transport troops and equipment.
  All this was avaiable, easily and readily, discussed and posted across the internet, why was the great lie promoted and accepted by so many? The 45 minute and WMD were classed in the same bracket of the multitude of babies killed in Iraqi hospitals prior to the 91 invasion. Just pure war warmongering, promoting a blatant lie.  

  Blair knew this, he and Geo Bush, Canpbell and co were all totally aware and anyone who claims any different is off with the fairies in Lalaland.

  Blair saw the effect of the Falklands war and wanted some of the same. Poor pitiful Fool

• sceptic64

  Odd. That’s not how Hans Blix saw it. If you read what he actually reported to the UN, then you will find that you are putting words into his mouth: what he said was that the co-operation had not been forthcoming in 1991 and that the period required for disarmament (in 2003) was not readily determinable because the necessary compliance had not been previously forthcoming. However, he indicated that it was, by and large, complying at the time, albeit through necessity.

  A more likely explanation is that Bush and Cheney (and Blair) had decided they were going to war anyway and couldn’t ru nthe risk of Blix finishing his project and discovering no WMD. Blair’s squirming on the Today programme certainly did nothing to dispel this notion.

• JohnJustice

  The relevant period here is not for “disarmament” but the period laid down by the United Nations for compliance with their demand for full (not “by and large”) cooperation with their inspectors. The word used in Resolution 1441 was ” immediate”. I will repeat that, since this key point is usually overlooked by apologists for Saddam such as yourself. The word used in Resolution 1441 was IMMEDIATE.

• JohnJustice

  The general consensus around the anti-west forums was that it was better to keep an anti-west mass murderer in power than to uphold UN resolutions resulting from the mass murderer’s invasion of Kuwait.

  That’s what you marched for and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

• sceptic64

  Ah. So I am an apologist for Saddam now, am I? The paucity of your position is displayed by your resort to the ad-hominem.

  Let me repeat: Perhaps you should actually read what Blix said to the UN in Mar 2003. He made it clear that obstacles were not, at the time, being put in his way. That would indicate that compliance was, at the time, being given.

  Blix did say that compliance was not “immediate”, that is granted: but then, compliance with almost any UN resolution is not “imediate”, is it?

  If so, I expect you also to fully support the implementation of resolution 242, which has been outstanding for 44 years. Do you support that one?

• JohnJustice

  Arguing that Saddam should be given more time to meet UN resolutions that had been in force for many years was playing Saddam’s game of spinning out compliance in the hope that the international community would give up on this matter. The argument usually goes along with other arguments defending Saddam’s responses to UN demands. Apologist is defined as someone who offers a defence of something. So using this term about those who are doing this is not an ad hominem but a statement of fact.

  Blix could have declared in that speech that Saddam had met the compliance requirements of 1441 but he did not do so because this was obviously not so.. Indeed he admitted that although progress had been made, obstacles had still been put in his way, particularly regarding the crucial requirement to interview scientists away from their minders and in a way that did not leave them open to intimidation to give the right answers.

  Compliance could have been done immediately in this case simply by saying yes to what the UN inspectors were asking for. It is the ensuing investigations which take a little longer.

  As regards UN resolution 242, this called for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, not ALL occupied territory. By withdrawing from the Sinai, Gaza, and parts of the West Bank (amounting to most of the occupied territory) Israel has complied with the exact wording of this part of the resolution. The resolution also called for the termination of all claims and states of belligerency and recognition of Israel’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised borders free from threats or acts of force. To that extent I fully support the the implementation of 242 and trust that you will ally yourself with those who are calling for the Arabs and Palestinians to do likewise. 

  Incidentally UN resolution 1441 was passed under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter allowing military action in the event of non-compliance. Resolution 242 was not passed under Chapter V11 so military action against Israel is not permitted.