Why Blair went to war
From Dr Jeremy Stocker Sir: The fuss surrounding first the Hutton report and now the Butler report (Blair is forced to face the truth', 17 July) obscures the real reason for Britain going to war.
On the grounds of WMD, one would go after North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or Syria before singling out Iraq for attention. On grounds of support for terrorism, one would come up with pretty much the same list, substituting Saudi Arabia for the DPRK and maybe leaving out Pakistan. Massachusetts might have cause to look over its shoulder. As for 'regime change' on humanitarian grounds, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and several former Soviet Republics qualify at least as much as Iraq.
But the British government was never faced with the question of whether to invade Iraq on any or all of these grounds. It was apparent very early on that Iraq was going to be invaded by the Americans. The question for Blair, therefore, was whether it was better, or less harmful, for the US to do it alone or as part of a coalition.
It is ironic that the one true act of statesmanship Blair has ever exhibited is the basis for the most virulent criticism of him, especially from within his own party. But then the real reason for Britain going to war is the one that Blair cannot acknowledge. The spin and counter-spin surrounding WMD, terrorism and regime change are merely distractions from the essential truth.
Jeremy Stocker
Durham
Previous page
