Testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry has indicated that then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was repeatedly advised that the invasion of Iraq would be illegal and that the security service informed him that Iraq did not possess “weapons of mass destruction” but only some battlefield weapons that could not be fired at the UK “at 45 minutes notice” -- one of Blair’s claims at the time. It seems to have taken a lot of finagling by more “amenable” advisers to create a political context in which an invasion might possibly be seen as legal.However, as we know, even with this engineering of the truth, many nations and people failed to be convinced of its legality at the time of the invasion or afterward. The more information that emerges, the more difficult it is to avoid concluding that Blair lied to his people and to parliament or that he is self-deluding in his grandiose desire for power and influence and his presumption that, no matter the evidence, he knows “better” than the common throng. His testimony to the Chilcot commission made it clear that he adheres to the doctrine of pre-emption, that is, one can commit an illegal act against a person or persons now in order to prevent a potential illegal act by the other later. So, for example, it becomes feasible to invade a country just in case it may become dangerous to you at some later date.
Blair’s post hoc justifications are just as unreal as those advanced prior to the war. He cites Iraq as dangerous because it is a center for al-Qaeda and other similar terrorist entities. He “forgets” that such groups had no place in Iraq prior to the invasion, so the invasion actually increased opportunities for both local and global terror. He presumes that his skill in self-presentation will somehow lead the general public and the world as a whole to overlook this most appalling fact.
The illegality of the Iraq invasion does not justify the general conduct of its former government, but without doubt the invasion and its aftermath have caused the violent deaths of a greater number of innocent civilians than Iraq’s previous regime ever did. That is in addition to a huge breakdown in society and an enormous surge in criminality, including the crimes of some British soldiers for whose presence there Blair is responsible.
As a Turkish citizen, what am I reminded of?
We also seem to suffer from a discomforting excess of those who wish to enact illegal “regime change” just in case the current incumbents might later do something they do not approve of. Our “regime changers” differ in that they are working internally, but are similarly self-deluding in their presumption that illegal means can be used to defend a nation and its values and that they know best what those values are. Other hallmarks the power-hungry in Turkey share with Blair are their love of secrecy and their inability to benefit from or modulate their conduct according to consultation with others of different views than their own.
In 2003 Blair rejected the advice of the pope at the time that the Iraq war was not morally justified. He has since converted to Catholicism, but still stands by his regrettable decision. Perhaps he should now cut down on his speaking engagements in the United States, profitable though they may be. With a little more time on his hands, he might ponder the story of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was also a powerful man with great self-belief. When troubled by those who were apparently ungrateful for his rule, he also had a tendency to overreact. Like Blair (and our own coup-plotters in Turkey), Pharaoh went through the motions of consultation without heeding any advice that went counter to his own wishes. Pharaoh tried to contest with Moses in front of his ministers and men of knowledge, and was infuriated when his advisers agreed with his opponent but refused to change his course. Opponents or naysayers fall like skittles around such “leaders.” The Chilcot Inquiry and investigations into coup-plotting in Turkey say the same.
In events in the UK and Turkey we see that dishonesty, arrogance and power-seeking are not qualities inherent to particular tribes and nations, but are evenly spread, a part of their human nature individuals must strive to overcome.
“Leaders” with such presumption do not lead their people to success. Far from it, robbed of the strength of sincere consultation, or in the modern world, the democratic process and the rule of law, their nations crumble, and such leaders finally earn nothing but scorn and contempt in this world and the next.
