91热爆

Another very impressive performance from the PM. We WILL miss him.

Whether the Prime Minister really believes what he says or is excusing his colossal error of judgement is, by now, immaterial. The real issue is how can it be, in a supposedly healthy democracy, that the man responsible for a catastrophe on that scale can continue to rule in his own terms, and neither his Cabinet or his Party have any moral or ethical problem with it. That corruption of values, the naked hanging on to power at any cost as part of the British political culture will be the Blair legacy.

He answered the question about the post-invasion plan with points about global terrorism. If he and Bush had made plans for how Iraq would be kept under control after the fall of Saddam then we wouldn't be in this situation.

So the terrorism inside Iraq is absolutely his fault. There were no suicide bombers in Iraq under Saddam, and there was no threat to the UK from Saddam's Iraq.

His comments today are beneath contempt. He really is an embarrassment to himself, his party and this country.

You should be calling for him to go and go now

I am sure philosophy departments all over the world are pouring over the hundreds and thousands of dead Iraqis for meaning. Why can't you get the fact that on a human level this war has been morally opporobious. And at the end of your piece you are clearly implying that preemption is justified against Iran. You are in a position to make a stand against these hawks - why don't you do it? Tony Blair isn't the only one who'll be judged by history - so will you.

An interesting interview. Tony Blair's language was also revealing - with a continual use of the second person "you" when discussing the Iraq situation as in "...reason you've got a problem".

Is this an attempt to distance himself from the Middle East situation as his time as PM ticks down, or just TB's blokeish interview manner?

After listening to Blair I am reminded of the classic defense of any criminal caught in the act: "Wasn't me, Guvnor". As a Labour (but not New) Party member I would say: Me thinks thou doth protest too much, Mr Blair.

Listening to the interview this morning in the car it made wonder whehter the PM was reading/seeing the same events I see everyday about Iraq in the news. How can he argue that he bears no responsibilty when all the failures have been so well detailed for all to see. The man should at least have the decency to say we got a few things wrong. But to come out with the same rubbish all the time incluidng changing the jsutification for the war makes him sound either dellusional, liar or just plain arrogant!

It's ironic that Blair's War, as he describes it, is between religious fanatics and the forces of democracy and yet he is as much a religious fanatic as anyone, with his attitude that his duty to do what he alone believes is right transcends such things as legality and democratic processes.

The philosophy of pre-emption is perhaps most about *when* rather than *whether*. Many would support intervention in Darfur for example, and would have supported trying to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. The PM this morning mentioned Kosovo and Sierra Leone, where again the case for intervention was strong and the result positive. The problem with Iraq is that the case for intervention was weak (if Al Qaeda is the enemy, why attack Iraq where it is not present; the WMDs were not a threat; there was not enough UN or international support) and it put a more important and necessary intervention - in Afganistan - at risk by diverting military resources and political attention from the task of destroying that terrorist factory.

I've still never heard any explanation why -- after a murderous attack by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11 -- the USA and allies decided to overthrow one of the most anti-Islamist regimes in the Middle East? It's not even about oil: Saddam was willing to sell that. Given that Osama bin Laden openly hated Saddam, why give him such a delightful and unexpected gift?

The US willingness to engage in military ventures to secure its hegemonic geopolitical position serves only to demonstrate that she is in relative decline. Securing what she can against Chinese/Asian/European and increasingly even Japanese competition. - That she must resort to overt military means shows her weakness. Dangerous gamble, as regional conflicts do not necessarily stay regional for very long. Especially not in this, a truly global age.

Extraordinary logic from the exiting PM:

- no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion;
- huge terrorist problem a year later;
- therefore the terrorism problem was not caused by the invasion.

I thought TB went to one of the best University's in the world. Don't they teach logic there anymore?

Pre-emptive war is almost always wrong given the death, destruction and chaos likely to ensue. You can imagine rare cases where the threat is so severe and imminent that pre-emptive war is justified. The Iraq war came nowhere near being one of these. It is also plain that the British government never really thought that Iraq was a direct threat to the UK anyway; it was all about getting rid of a bad man and siding with the Americans.

I am appalled that, even after all this time, Tony Blair can say that he bears no responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

Actually perhaps if historians had been listend to or read, the planning for the operations in Iraq might have been placed on a far better informed platform. And the same would apply to the doctrine of pre-emption, thought about what states or polities have developed this in the past and how successfully should play an integral part in this public debate.

"First, the only people to blame for terrorism are terrorists."

I class Tony Blair and George W. Bush as terrorists through their utterly idiot invasion of a soverign nation, so they are to blame for the chaos and thousands of lives lost in Iraq.

It's so sad to see a grown man lie through his teeth like Tony Blair is doing. The really sad thing is he actually believes what he is saying is true.

Time to haul Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush up before a judge to be charged with War Crimes. Can't wait till they're both booted from office.

This philosophy described sounds familar to a sporting philosophy used on the 1971 British Lions Rugby Tour to New Zealand..
Devolped by the late great Carwyn James who called it "getting your retaliation in first".

Worked for him and the Lions -only succesful win ever on NZ home soil.

Does not work for wars though just more and more violence as we and especially our and US forces have found out and the poor ordinary Iraq people.

I agree with Nick Robinson about pre-emption - it demands discussion. When WMD are involved, you can be smoke and rubble before you have the political will to move. People forget that NATO had a doctrine of first use of tactical nuclear weapons so as to keep the cost of conventional forces down. This pre-emption debate is less controversial than that but potentially more difficult politically.

Nick, I disagree.
Too MUCH attention was given to the underlying philosophy of going to war.
As George Packer said in his brilliant book on the subject, The Assassins' Gate,
"For lifelong doves, the first sip of this drink called humanitarian intervention carried a special thrill. All the drama, the intense heat of argument, was generated in the decision whether or not to go to war. In this moment one's moral credentials were on the line. it was a kind of existential choice, a statement of values, all the more potent for being politically unorthodox and sometimes even brave. None of this made the decisions any less serious or sincere, but the more mundane questions of what would happen later tended to dissolve in a mist of high purpose." (p34)
There will always be a debate about whether ousting Saddam was right per se. What is unforgivable is the failure properly to prepare for and deliver a coherent, lasting future infrastructure for Iraq. The second issue is never going to be as sexy as the first, but that's what's affected people's lives much more. And eventually what has skewed the debate about the first question forever.

Stating that the "philosophy" of pre-emption underpinned the invasion of Iraq is in itself fundamentally flawed Mr Robinson.

Saddam Hussein's regime had already been stripped of its military power during the First Gulf War and the subsequent embargo, no-fly zones and weapons inspections. This was clearly borne out by the ease at which the country was invaded and the lack of WMDs.

There was no threat from Al-Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq prior to the fall of Saddam. Indeed, Baathism and the Al-Qaeda ideology are diametrically opposed.

You are wrong in your assumption that the Iraq war is unique because of pre-emption. The Iraq war is not unique, it is simply another conflict in the long line of those that have been fought in the names of power, greed, corruption and militarism.

There is a debate to be had on the philosophy of going to war in these circumstances. In a democracy, this debate should have happened before the invasion. Tony Blair avoided this debate by insisting that it was about WMD. I wish he would realise that this is what most of us hold against him because we believe that his avoidance of the honest debate was deliberate.

It is difficult to see how we could ever define a legal framework for going after threats that might arise in the future. What level of proof and immediacy would be required to stop us simply going after those we dislike, or those who have enviable resources.

Amen to Bill's comment above. I think part of the reason why Blair is still there is that his ability to argue eloquently, with specious lawyer's logic, that black is white has never deserted him. From this interview, 'The terrorists caused the terrorism' is a typical soundbite, so neat that it seems true and logical, but after a few moments' thought it's revealed as completely illogical and wrong: a complete lie, in fact. It is almost impossible to argue against someone capable of piling such twists of logic one on top of the other, point after point.

Great cleverness, unfortunately employed for despicable ends.

Pre-emption is just the easy and most brutal form of conflict. It is also the most abrupt way of saying actually violence is ok. As a reflection of a supposedly civilised society this is could aid in the perpetration of violent crime, for as the non-violent argument goes (quoting from Mark Kurlansky) "it is hypocritical of a state to say violence is bad and then go ahead and create a war where civilians are killed". Pre-emption then just says violence is fine and talking is wasted. Violence is just seen as the shorted route to a solution because non-violence is pretty well by it own admission a long process but overall can have a better lasting influence.

An interesting point about pre-emption, but this is only part of the issue, of which, yes, those pesky WMD's are a part.

How can pre-emptive action be justified ina case where no threat is apparent (or even, in reality, even extant)? Iraq was not a threat to UK security, it was not even, after the length of time sanctions had bitten, a major threat in the middle east any longer.

The unoomfortable truth is that this war was prosecuted to underpin the longer term strategic foreign policy aims of a political group within the US. Any amount of dressing up or attempted denial by Blair will not make that go away.

And now he tries to dissociate himself by trying to abdicate responsibility for helping to cause this situation. Breathtaking, truly.

It now hardly matters what Blair thinks, the man is clearly in a state of denial. Those who are faced with the daily grind of living with this mess - not least the Iraqis themselves - are quite aware how grave a situation it is, and how misguided, ill-prepared and foolish an adventure it was. The point is for us not to be drawn headlong into another such disaster, by such a leader, and in such a manner.

Iraq may all along have been intended by some as a stepping stone on the way to Iran. It is time for *us* to think again.

We waged war upon Germany in WW2 because they invaded Poland.

This was in the 'British interest'.

We did not wage war because Germany waged war upon us.

We won the war.

We did not liberate Poland, we gave it away to another agressor, the Soviet Union.

WW2, a success for the 'British interest'?

What did Poland have to say about this view?

Iraq was and, for the time being, an unstable Country operating outside of 'World order'. It waged aggression upon all of its neighbours with its WMD.It is a Country that sits on the 5th biggest supply of oil, that is needed by the responsible world to sustain that 'World order'.

The question shall always remain whether it was right, reasonable and in the British interest to return Iraq to the fold of World Order and to free up oil for its maintainance.

The answer will always be YES!

Tony was absolutely correct in his decision. Parliament said so and so do the majority of the (non) sceptical British public.

Journalists are excused this weight of morality, if they wish to be.

Gary

Nick, I think you are spot on about how we cannot leave this to future historians to understand what happened.

There are key learnings that we must understand now as it is highly likely that we will face this situation again in the short to mid term future.

Are we in danger of repeating ourselves? Time for some objective analysis I feel.

"The philosophy - if that鈥檚 not too grand a word for it - is pre-emption; i.e. countries are justified in taking military action to head off a future threat because it鈥檚 too dangerous to wait for it to materialise."

You have unquestioningly taken Mr Blair's claims at face value. He claimed he was going to war to head off a future threat. In fact, this was simply untrue. There was no threat whatsoever. There were no WMD and, more importantly, no evidence of WMD at the time - just bogus "evidence" and sexed-up dossiers. Iraq was crippled by sanctions and posed no threat whatsoever. The real reason for the war was to control Iraq's oil. It's as simple as that. It certainly wasn't WMD (which didn't exist) and it certainly wasn't to install democracy (else why do we support Saudi Arabia and Egypt?)

As an earlier poster said, Mr Blair isn't the only one who will be judged by history - so will his lackeys in the media, all of whom turn a blind eye to what is going on and try to persuade the public that the "official line" is actually true. Please try and remember the figure of 650,000 dead Iraqis (at latest estimate) before you write something like this again...

The philosophy for the war is: "countries are justified in taking military action to head off a future threat because it鈥檚 too dangerous to wait for it to materialise."

The problem with the US and UK using that justification is that it cuts both ways.

If they accept this as a justification, it is a justification for Iran to launch a nuclear strike against the US, as the US has already expressed it's willingness to attack Iran. It seems that any nation can use this justification for attacking any other.

There鈥檚 only one thing I believe is more disappointing than the story of this rotten, sorry, awful war. Standing back from it 鈥� consider this: After all the money we spend on defence and the extent to which the larger western nations鈥� economies rely on the defence industry 鈥� why are we so useless?

We flip flopped on Iraq for years after playing it as both an ally and then an enemy. We did attack after dividing the whole world on the issue and, incredibly didn鈥檛 plan what to do when we finished. We watched, seemingly helpless as ethnic cleansing occurred on our doorstep in Kosovo before finally acting on it - yet we鈥檙e still ringing our hands on Darfur, talking while other humans are being slaughtered. We couldn鈥檛 even bring ourselves to talk about Lebanon or call for a ceasefire last year. North Korea has joined the nuclear club and acts with impunity on how she deals with us or how she starves her people. Iran feels free to threaten to wipe a neighbour off the face of the planet and knows it will get away with saying so.

More depressing yet is how we鈥檙e dealing with our own uselessness - Tony Blair sees no link between the UK鈥檚 foreign policy and terrorism. George Bush thinks terrorists exist simply and purely because 鈥渢hey hate our freedom鈥�. Spain hands terrorists precisely what they want by pulling out of Iraq after a train bombing showing terrorism works. The police are leaking details of suspected terrorists arrested, condemning them in the press and undermining the trial process. Some national newspapers consistently attack Muslims either by carping on about political correctness or undermining their beliefs. Following the alleged transatlantic plane bomb plot, we take security precautions such as taking the bins from trains.

If practicality entered any part of the internal war or terrorist debate and practicality won. I鈥檓 afraid I鈥檝e missed it.

Now, Nick, if you鈥檒l excuse me 鈥� I鈥榲e ranted myself into a depression and need a drink!

People have a right to their own opinian, however I sometimes get frustrated by the short memories of why the war was started. Yes claims of WMD's have now been discounted but Mr Hussain could have stoped this war by allowing inspectors to do their job. Having served in Iraq as A TA soldier during the conflict I feel those who have strong feelings should now vent those feelings as pride for the soldiers doing a very difficult job with very little support from the idiots who keep on harping on whether the war was just or not.

The 91热爆s anti Tony Blair agenda disgusts me.

Nick Robinson is absolutely right to raise the issue that was key to Iraq. That is, blind acceptance by much of the British people that we had a right to wade in (and as it turns out, destroy) another nation's country because well, we just can. Like so much else this is wrong-headed and dangerous twaddle that Bush told Tony, so it must be right.

It isn't. We now face an even worse dilemma; how do we deal with a nation that might really be a nuclear threat?

I heard Tony Blair on the Today programme this morning and all we got were the same old tired excuses, and in some cases down right lies. He was neither convincing nor credible.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows what a massive humanitarian disaster Iraq has, and continues, to be. The desperate over simplification of the situation and its fall out by the government is frankly insulting to our intelligence. Tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of lives have been lost or destroyed and Mr Blair cares not a jot for all the innocent blood on his hands.

I hope Mr Blair gets the comeuppance he deserves and ends up on trial in The Hague, but unfortunately we all know that will never, ever happen. He is a truly, truly awful human being.

I think the worry for many of us is that it is not just pre-emption but aggressive pre-emption - gun boat diplomacy without just the gun boats (or come to that without very much of the diplomacy).

The essence of the AMERICAN view of pre-emptive strikes is that, as in the good old days of the Munroe doctrine (when you knew you had a problem when the 'enemy' turned up on your doorstep) or the Cold War (when you knew you had a problem when the 'enemy' turned up on your client states' doorsteps, or 'threatened vital interests'), you have to take pre-emptive action to gain time and strategic advantage. The idea that pre-emption is a NEW characteristic of US foreign and military policy is wrong; it has been essential to all US foreign policy since 1812. In my view US foreign policy is essentially, crudely and almost obsessively SO defensive it HAS to take an aggressive, pre-emptive form.

The tradition in the UK (episodes of Palmerstonian and Edenesque madness aside) is different. Britain's foreign and military policy since the eclipse of empire has been to respond to provocations with overwhelming force, but rarely to preempt them with action.

It is the fact that the doctrine of aggressive pre-emption is so clearly foreign to us, and to our policy approach, that makes the Blair escapade with Bush in Iraq seem so extraordinary. I don't deny the seriousness of the threat from global terror, but I do see Mr Blair's approach as instinctively 'alien'. That's what got him in this pickle in the first place.

I don't agree that this war had a unique philosophy of pre-emptiveness. It seems the exact opposite of unique. I was recently watching some nazi propaganda from 1939, and the nazis used the same philosophy in their invasion of Poland. Indeed, as Hermann Goering said at Nuremburg, it's very straightforward to get your population to support a war of aggression: all you have to do is tell the people they're being attacked, and that you need to take the war to the enemy. Anyone who disagrees is denounced as unpatriotic.

DISASTER!!
The batteries on the remote were flat so I couldn't turn Mr Blair off.
Fortunately fresh batteries soon sent him to his well deserved oblivion.

Hmmm...I'm not sure the 'doctrine of pre-emption' is what this war was sold to Parliament as. Or the United Nations for that matter. Not that they gave us a resolution to go to war.

I also find it interesting the number of times the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' appears in Nick's post.

Funny that...I thought the guidelines told you to avoid that awkward 'T-word', but perhaps in this case it helps the case that Blair is trying to make..

This 'philosophy' has been banded around by the Bush, Blair administrations and their apologists for the catastrophe that is Iraq.

It further begs the question, 'Is this priviledge of pre-emptive strikes against Sovereign countries only to be enjoyed by the USA and Britain?' It is a false premise and will serve only to make the world a more dangerous place.

Is it a wonder the Iranians are striving to acquire the facilities to produce a nuclear 'deterrent'? N. Korea has amply demonstrated the weakness of the world bullies by showing the strength their nuclear capability has afforded them.

Unfortunately Mr Blair and George Bush, with their war-mongering, Religious instincts have together created a very, very dangerous world.

Will you all stop bleating about things which are only now apparent in hindsight! Do you really think ANY leader, however brilliant or well advised, could have made accurate predictions of the fall-out after the take-over of an entire country and the removal of its regime? Possiblilities yes, but a detailed analysis? Of course not. Any planning for the post-war period would of necessity be broadly based on a range of potential situations and influences. There are many valid constructive criticisms which can be made of TB's handling of Iraq, but they are not major issues. If the world had shown more willingness to help in the wake of the war, things may have been a lot better by now. I for one hope like hell that we continue to have leaders brave enough to take action against genocidal monsters in the future.

Nick,
The one thing I fail to understand is why Iraq. Firstly we were told that it was weapons of mass destruction and yet there were none. If that was the result of failures in intelligence then why have all the principles involved been promoted, you don't normally reward failure. Then we are told Saddam was a bad guy and that was the reason for becoming involved in regime change, which is prohibited by the UN. The world is full of people who are arguably worse than Saddam so why stop at Iraq? Occasionally we are told that this is all part of the war on terrorism and yet prior to the invasion Iraq seemed to have little or no link to international terrorism.

The argument that a pre-emptive strike is justifiable relies heavily on there being a threat to the UK from the Iraqi regime, something upon which much doubt has been cast. I believe the biggest threat to our democracy is this idea that there can be no investigation of the governments actions while British troops remain in Iraq. Clearly something went badly wrong here. Until these failures are addressed how can anyone have any confidence in the governments ability to identify a credible threat. If the government cannot identify threats then further pre-emptive strikes cease to be an option.

Blair is essentially an actor, a shallow man without core or real values. JH fed his vanity and delusions by suggesting he believes in good over evil and that his actions over Iraq were so inspired, rather than taking a pragmatic decsion based on evidence in the security interests of this country. What Blair is desperate to avoid is not a finding he was hopelessly wrong,he knows that, but that he acted dishonestly and/or recklessly for improper motives as a result of which many thousands have died. He can defend himself into the grave so long as you go along with the idea that he acted in good faith. Otherwise a good interview by JH, still the best in the business, by miles and a weak one by Blair!!

I think you are missing the point with all this blather about pre-emption - Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat to us or anyone else. The goal was to create an Arab democratic state from which democracy would spread within the region, thereby eroding the support base for terrorism (which feeds on the injustice and oppression which exists in so many of these countries).

Iraq was a suitable candidate for this process and probably considered more do-able than others. What was unrealistic about our government's policy was the timescale - this is not in the 5/10 year timeframe. 50/100 years is probably more realistic. They thought it would be like the fall of the Berlin Wall - but obviously, it wasn't. If we are to create a safer world, we will need politicians with this degree of (Churchillian) vision - where are they?

It's a bit like a person who is unwell. Do you wait until he actually has a heart-attack (before action is taken), or do you take preventative action in advance?
Preventative action is usually better, in the long term.

In all the hype prior to the invasion of Iraq one Henry Kissinger stated in a conference that if America and the UK were to go to war, with or without UN backing, a clear exit strategy had to be in place.

Both governments ingnored this. Had they planned a proper exit strategy we would not be in this mess.

If Blair denies responsibility for the bad things that came after the war, will he also deny responsibility for the good ?

And on the subject of philosophy in the run-up to the war the UK and US were threatening war unless Iraq could prove it had no weapons of mass destruction - and had destoyed its chemical weapons. These were being presented as very reasonable and logical requirements. However they represented a twisting of language and logic. In practice it would not have been possible for Iraq to prove these negatives to our satisfaction - given that the UN inspectors had been withdrawn and were probably not believed anyway.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to unearth any WMD, my fear has always been where does this leave the authority of any British government, should the need to justify a war arise again?

Should a government ever suspect a rogue or failed state of sponsoring terrorism, or possessing WMD with the intent to threaten the West or arm terrorists, how could a pre-emptive strike possibly gain any popular support from the country at large?

In essence, is Blair the Prime Minister that cried wolf? And if he is, has that shifted the nation's mindset irreparably? Whereas once we trusted our politicians judgement to take us to war, how many people can now forsee a situation where there is a genuine threat, but the cynicism garnered by the Iraq war blinds us to it?

Nick is absolutely right to highlight the need to study the philosophy behind the Iraq war. It is striking how little media attention has been given to documents such as the 2002 US National Security Strategy, or the more recent United Nations High Level Panel report, which both question how far our traditional notions of aggression and self-defence are challenged by the proliferation of WMD and the rise of international terrorism. However, Nick is wrong on two counts. Firstly the philosophy of pre-emptive self-defence has been studied in considerable depth in military and academic circles. It is rather the media and MP's who have failed to bring the existing debate into the public forum where it belongs. (If Nick or any other public minded journalist wants to correct this I will happily provide a list of research and contacts as this matter really should get more public attention).
Secondly it is misleading to refer to the philosophy behind the Iraq war as 'pre-emption'. This term refers only to self-defence undertaken to thwart an imminent attack and possesses a degree of legitimacy under International Law. The Iraq war and the philosophy of self-defence outlined by Mr Bush and Mr Blair is properly called preventive war - war undertaken to forestall an expected, yet non-imminent and non-certain attack. Such action is technically illegal if undertaken without UN authorisation and for this reason it has been expedient for the US and UK governments to use the term 'pre-emptive action' in public. It is important to expose this fallicy because it prevents the real debate from becoming public. Preventive war is unquestionably illegal at present, yet it is abundantly clear that the the proliferation of WMD and the development of the terrorist phenomenon may have undermined the assumptions on which that illegality is based. Rather than duck the issue by hiding behind the 'pre-emptive' label, it would be better for all if our politicians and media accepted the Iraq conflict for what it was, an illegal preventive war, and debated the serious issue of whether the law needs changing, and if so how. Otherwise I fear the approaching discourse about how to deal with Iran will be as misleading as the discourse over Iraq, and the public will feel similarly betrayed

The man who was so obsessed with dragging politics kicking and screaming into the media age seems to have forgotten that good PR can only disguise bad results for so long. These days, the Labour party is acting with a contempt for the common good comparable to that of your average multinational corporation.

A strong Labour party would have resolved this situation long ago, but instead Blair is tolerated like some geriatric life chairman whose directors are biding their time in the name of career progression. The man capable of holding together a rabble of unprincipled drones as a government is now discovering that an autocracy isn't the best breeding ground for a strong successor.

The need for pre-emptive action presumes that there was a serious and imminent threat to the UK, the Iraq war is analagous to me punching a five year old because I thought he might attack me in 20 years time.

Indeed, yet again a very competent interview by Tony Blair. The PM has never complained about shortcomings in the information on Iraq, and has taken all the flak from the media suggesting he manipulated the security services 'et al'. Unlike the Tories he has never tried to shrug off any responsibility with a lame 'we were misled' excuse and has always maintained he did what he thought was right, and is still of that view. I can't believe "There were no suicide bombers in Iraq under Saddam" Comment 3. - Londontory; after all what was 9/11? Also, it seems the media is incapable of envisaging what the situation would be if the Saddam regime were still in place.

Nick is absolutely right to highlight the need to study the philosophy behind the Iraq war. It is striking how little media attention has been given to documents such as the 2002 US National Security Strategy, or the more recent United Nations High Level Panel report, which both question how far our traditional notions of aggression and self-defence are challenged by the proliferation of WMD and the rise of international terrorism. However, Nick is wrong on two counts. Firstly the philosophy of pre-emptive self-defence has been studied in considerable depth in military and academic circles. It is rather the media and MP's who have failed to bring the existing debate into the public forum where it belongs. (If Nick or any other public minded journalist wants to correct this I will happily provide a list of research and contacts as this matter really should get more public attention).
Secondly it is misleading to refer to the philosophy behind the Iraq war as 'pre-emption'. This term refers only to self-defence undertaken to thwart an imminent attack and possesses a degree of legitimacy under International Law. The Iraq war and the philosophy of self-defence outlined by Mr Bush and Mr Blair is properly called preventive war - war undertaken to forestall an expected, yet non-imminent and non-certain attack. Such action is technically illegal if undertaken without UN authorisation and for this reason it has been expedient for the US and UK governments to use the term 'pre-emptive action' in public. It is important to expose this fallicy because it prevents the real debate from becoming public. Preventive war is unquestionably illegal at present, yet it is abundantly clear that the the proliferation of WMD and the development of the terrorist phenomenon may have undermined the assumptions on which that illegality is based. Rather than duck the issue by hiding behind the 'pre-emptive' label, it would be better for all if our politicians and media accepted the Iraq conflict for what it was, an illegal preventive war, and debated the serious issue of whether the law needs changing, and if so how. Otherwise I fear the approaching discourse about how to deal with Iran will be as misleading as the discourse over Iraq, and the public will feel similarly betrayed

I think there is a fundamental problem with the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare.

If any state which is threatened with an attack is at liberty to attack first then Iraq would have been justified in striking at the UK and USA before Bush and Blair started bombing Baghdad.

So had Iraq the WMD claimed then under this pre-emptive doctrine it could have used them against our cities.

It seems to me that once you realise the genie of pre-emptive action then potentially all states are licensed to attack each other. For example if Iran feels threatened by US sword rattling over its nuclear programme it would therefore be justified in supporting insurgents in Iraq ... leading to the US feeling justified in striking at Iran and ...

We should return to the five prior conditions which have to be met before a just war can be launched. Blair ignored these and look what a mess he got us into ...

"Pre-emption"? Surely there has to be a threat first. Assuming that it is possible for politicians to lie on occasion is it not possible that there was no threat? That the threat was fabricated to allow a "pre-emptive" attack in order to fulfil other foreign policy goals?

While a discussion on what constitutes a just war using the 鈥減re-emptive鈥� philosophy would be valuable, this seems irrelevant to the Iraq discussion. The philosophy that should be under scrutiny is what constitutes a just war when defending this country鈥檚 control of the world鈥檚 natural resources.

For Tony Blair to say that he has no responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq is patently absurd.

Image that I kick your front door open and leave it open.

You get home to find all the stray dogs in the neighbourhood fighting in your house and I have the nerve to say that it's nothing to do with me! It's the dogs fault! Absurd!

I am interested in your comment about how the rights and wrongs of this should not be left to historians. Actually, this is one of the key functions of historians. As more and more evidence about the last sorry 6 years begins to be declassified and released, the historians will pore over this evidence and make reasoned judgements.

This is of course where things get interesting. I think if you have a rogue state, with WMDs that are capable of delivery in 45 mins, few would argue about the need for pre-emption. On the other hand if you have a rogue state whose military power has been crushed, and has no strategic capabilities whatsoever, then the need for pre-emption is rightly questioned. What remains the central issue in this whole sorry affair is that Tony Blair presented evidence to the decision making body of the country, Parliament, that was false. That false imformation was a key influence to the decision making body agreeing to go to war. The person responsible for that false information should be tried for contempt of parliament, and if that person was Tony Blair so be it. If no-one was responsible - as Tony Blair seems to claim - then we have a systemic failure in the intelligence services which should be urgently rectified.

A final point is that we then need to decide what the balance of proof needs to be on WMD before it tips our hand in favour of pre-emption. I suspect that the Iraq debacle will force future governments to have a much higher standard of proof before intervention, and that standard may tip too far, resulting in us missing a real problem. If that problem occurs and 20,000 innocents are vapourised, then that will, unfortuantely for him, be Tony Blair's legacy.

The disaster of the Treaty of Versailles resulted in the second world war. I wonder whether Iraq will have similar consequences in 10-20 years time.

My impression of Prime Minister Blair鈥檚 argument for war was that he was too focused, and his defence of the action suffers from a similar problem. In many ways, I think, this is a fault of his training as a barrister, British politics, and personality. Overall, it was a disappointing performance.

My reading of the situation is that Kofi Annan, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and Sir Richard Dannat鈥檚 views are more in tune with the underlying mood of people. If there鈥檚 a problem, here, it鈥檚 they鈥檙e a little short on providing a view on how best to move forward. Similarly, this needs fixing.

What I hope to see, and something that gets to the core of Nicks question, is how we deal with things. The past is gone, and the future remains to be made. What we think and feel, what we do now, the choices we make, effects the future. A better now makes a better tomorrow.

With willing, a positive consensus is possible.

Why wasn't Blair asked who benefits from this war? Who is doing well out of what is happening in Iraq today?

For whom did Blair and Bush get it right?

I dont agree with Tony Blair on most things, but it is certain that terrorists are to blame for terrorists. Muslim leaders should blame other muslims for killing muslims rather than blaming Tony Blair and George Bush for it

Samuel (9) wrote: "Listening to the interview this morning in the car it made wonder whehter the PM was reading/seeing the same events I see everyday about Iraq in the news"

Lets assume My Blair is capable and truthful (bear with me on this) so his views can only be supported if we're being kept in the dark about something. Whatever it is, it must be shaping his views a lot more than (supposedly capable and truthful) media coverage because his views are clearly inconsistent with the media reports.

The other view is that Mr Blair is lying. If so, why? To save his skin? Why bother with a few months to go? To get Ruth Turner out of the spotlight? Why would he put himself this much in the firing line to protect Ruth Turner?

Oh, and mucho thanks to Michael Meacher for filling even the inside pages with no-news. What a lot is going on today!

Many would doubt that the philosophy that underpinned the launch of the war in Iraq was one of pre-emption, as claimed in your blog.

Of course, that is how it was sold to us, after all one has to find some sort of reason to invade another country.

But the intelligence was hyped up - the UN had people on the ground and could find no evidence of WMDs in the locations Blair and Bush said they were.

At this point Bush and Blair and their intelligence agencies knew Saddam was well down the list of potential threats to us.

Colin Powell himself had said months earlier that Saddam was not a threat.

Claiming that the war isn't his fault is like Hitler claiming the Second World War was the fault of Churchill for failing to capitulate.

The war that continues to rage in Iraq will be Blair's sole legacy.

Perhaps "the terrorists" realised that a load of foreigners presented a threat and might invade their country, killing vast numbers of people in the process. They thought "Lets stop this threat by going to the country which might attack us and kill some people"...

Too many humans, not enough resources, always going to result in a fight if you ask me. The most powerful (most aircraft) always win and history is hugely influenced by propoganda.

I am really tired of hearing this man's justifications based on his belief system. 'I really believe' this and that, is no justification for going to the pub let alone starting a war. If he wants to believe in fairy tales then that is his, and only his, prerogative.

His 'beliefs' has associated this country with the likes of all those in history who invade other countries illegally. Was n't that the sole reason for our country to declare war on Germany in 1939? And that with the democratic support of almost the entire country.

His 'Terrorists' are others 'Freedom Fighters' and however dreadful their actions they pale into insignificance to the actions of the USA and UK.

We feel terribly ashamed Mr Blair.

We can only hope that the rest of the world one day will forgive us.

Half of Britain would vote for Neville Chamberlain today. So would most of Europe. Europe's national bird should be the ostrich. Tony Blair is one of the few clear thinking people in Britain anymore, many of those who once were there have left in disgust. Was Tony Blair Bush's poodle? Much more likely the other way around. It was Britain which generated the dodgy dossier. It was Blair who for domestic political reasons needed an extra six months to try to get a UN Security Council resolution when it was both hopeless and unnecessary, Iraq having countless times violated the terms of cease fire to the previous resolution authorizing military action after the invasion of Kuwait. America's opposition to the war in Iraq is different from most of Europe's. Americans support the war and its aims, they are just very frustrated that it is not turning out as they had hoped or were lead to believe. Europeans, intensely jealous of America's far more successful civilization want to see it hurt and hope it is somehow attacked and destroyed by Islamic terrorists. That is why they oppose every move to stop them.

Pre-emptive war is not just a philosophical argument, it is a necessary strategy for survival in our time. World Wars I, II, and the cold war were about who would control civilization. The war on terror is about whether we will have any civilization left at all, at least in the sense it has evolved into over the last 1000 years. The good news is that the US will not pay any attention to what Europe has to say, it hasn't for a long time anyway. Anyone remember the outcry when President Reagan put Pershing II missiles in Europe 25 years ago? A lot of Eurosocialists didn't want the US to win the cold war and have never forgiven it for having won. Europe's noise is becoming a faint din to American ears as real power has shifted elesewhere. Economic power has moved to the Pacific rim America is very much apart of and to the Indian subcontinent. Military power rests with the US. How comforting to know that it is under the control of those who have both the will and wisdom to use it when it is necessary and not under the thumb of some corrupt, faceless, unelected, unaccountable, cowardly Eurocracy.

Pre-emption has a role. How many millions would have been saved had we faced down Hitler in 1936 when he re-militarised the Rhineland?
The problem with Iraq is that the equivalent was Saddam's attack on Kuwait, not Bush and Blair's trumped up war.

Mark [39]'s view on the difference between UK and US approaches to war perhaps answers Tony Hannon [34]'s point. The West actually does have the brute power to intervene in cases like Darfur, but chooses not to use it, for fear of exacerbating regional tensions, upsetting friendly governments, etc. Britain has perhaps been more cautious on intervention than America because (i) we are always conscious of our diminished status as a world power and (ii) we are never quite so confident that we are in the right. In that way, the Iraq war is an oddity for Britain. Tony Blair got out of step with the people because he didn't see that.

Is it right, that under certain circumstances, to wage war pre-emptively?

My opinion is that it would be, under certain circumstances. For example, had Iraq really had WMD, then the case for war would have been stronger. After all, it was on this basis that Parliament supported the war.

However, as we now know, there were no WMD and Iraq was already largely crippled by sanctions. And the UK's and US's intervention has increased our exposure to terrorism (I don't care for Mr. Blair's belief here!), cost thousands of lives and added turmoil to the Middle East.

It has reduced our own ability to deal with a potentially more serious threat to international peace: namely Iran, and Israel's likely reaction should they require nuclear missiles. And also from a selfish UK prospective, greatly reduced our own trust in the government.

Therefore, we have to return to the people who made these decisions. Why was the intelligence so flawed? Why was the post-invasion so badly managed? Why were these risks not factored into the decisions made by Parliament. If things were not so black and white, why was Parliament presented the information in such a black and white manner?

Or is the whole middle-east crusade (including Iran) really just about oil and the US's protection of the petro-dollar? (something also rarely debated in the media.)

History is written by the victors. And I can only conclude that pre-emption is only justified if it achieves its objectivess and makes the situation better! In this case, it clearly hasn't. And therefore, you have to look at the people who made those decisions. And hold them responsible.

Tony Blair maybe one of the most gifted speakers we have seen...but unfortunately his record as a manager (and this includes his domestic agenda as well as Iraq) is pretty suspect.

Who still believes in the Blair version of events? That the coalition of the willing was made to intervene because the hated French said "Non"?

The truth is that planning for the war had started a long time before and troops were ready. Intelligence had been bent and there is no truth in the claimed universal acceptance that Saddam had WMDs. If Iraq posed such a great and imminent danger, why did many nations, and not just France, China, Russia, Germany refuse to intervene?

The sad truth, even in his end game as Prime Minister, is that Blair with his denials and carefully deflected answers(to John Humphries' questions)is dragging what is decent, honourable and quintessentially perceived Britishness to his political grave.

His political legacy will be one of a crass individual employing any means just to be liked at the expense of what had been decent, honourable and trustworthy in the belief of Government.

The sooner he goes the better.

I would like to hear much more about the link between oil dollars and the war in Iraq - and the upcoming war in Iran. Common to both these offensives is the US's need to maintain dollars as the currency for oil.

For decades the US has funded their huge trade deficit by ensuring there is a constant worldwide demand for dollars (which they can make almost for free and then sell to the rest of the world). Since OPEC was persuaded to accept only dollars in exchange for oil, they have achieved this goal: you can't buy oil on the world market without first buying dollars from the US government.

Saddam broke this link and took payment for oil in Euros. Almost immediately, the war build-up began. Many things were missed in the build up to the Iraq war, but one thing was very carefully planned for: within two months of the invasion, the currency for Iraqi oil was once again restricted to dollars.

If countries could buy oil in Euros (or exchange it for trade, as Chavez is urging them to do - hence US hostility to him) then worldwide demand for dollars would be seriously affected and, many economists think, the US economy would collapse.

Iran are currently in the latter stages of establishing an oil trading system in Euros. Could this perhaps be why the US are so desperate for the government to be overthrown or attacked?

When we talk about the motivation for the Iraq war, I think the 91热爆 should shine a torch on the desperation of the US to maintain the worldwide demand for dollars as one of the most important motivating factors.

I had to switch off the interview for Tony surely is an ill man who is incapable of making rational decisions and understanding truly why others do not agree with him. Let us hope he has time to recuperate and reflect when he leaves office.

Well, he has to have some inner-narrative to enable him to sleep at night. However we all know full well he is at present engineering the public perception of his time in office.

Todays news that troops may well have to return to Iraq if things get worse was as predictable as night-follows-day and was alluded to by Democracy Now journalist Amy Goodman yesterday.

When is the 91热爆 and other media going to get tough on this cross-party deception and help us re-build our democracy away from the corporate occupation at number 10.

For years we were told Communist Eastern Europe was different to us, that we should accept them and their huge military was because they were scared of us. The reality was a small group had control of the country, they were incompetent, corrupt and indoctrinated their population to fear the West to help perpetuate the regime. When the Soviet Union collapsed we found the majority were the same as us, wanted freedom, democracy and many have come to live here.

The fall of communism is behind the new thinking, Iran and much of the Middle East is the same as the old Soviet Union, backward economies, extremists and dictators in power, huge corruption and nepotism. Iran's leader is obsessed with Israel and America and yesterday he announced he would if needed, sacrifice all public services to support the Nuclear program and has talked of wiping Israel from the face of the map. This man is clearly a danger

Much of our moral attitudes are based on selfishness. Huge numbers of people die in Africa because we don't want to get involved, we'd much rather hold a pop concert or donate a few pounds to charity. Saddam invades 2 countries and kills his own people, but many say we should have left him alone.

Blair's public reluctance to accept responsibility for the shambles through his autocratic decision-making, continue to make people uneasy on this subject. Everyone knows it was a mistake but he cannot admit it. Unconditional support of the USA has all but ended following his decisions, which if nothing else, has been a position thing. His memoirs in five years time will make interesting reading.

Blair reasoning changes to suit the cicumstances....

We went to war over WMD.
Non found.

Doesn't matter, Saddam was a nasty dictator & Iraq is well rid of him.

Chaos ensues.

That's all due to 'insurgents'. (That well known euphanism for anyone who is resisting that we didn't plan for).

Civil war follows.

That's the fault of terrorists, and not because we took the lid off of the ethnic divisions supressed by Saddam.

Blair displays all the traits of the pathalogical liar that he is...his mind reconstructs his reasoning to give credibility to his lies. Which means that he really believes that what he is saying is the truth. Yes ...he really is that sick and dangerous.

The problem is that Iraq is an extremely poor crucible to test the logic of pre-emption. Iraq wasn't harbouring terrorists and as their WMD programme didn't exist the pre-emption came way before any action would have otherwise been necessary. This makes it a poor example.

Afghanistan on the other hand seems like a good litmus test for Blair's philosophy. If the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is reduced/removed then a direct causality could be produced between pre-emption and security.

Of course pre-emption takes two forms, the latter of which was Blair's starting point. This pre-emption is designed to prevent bad things from happening elsewhere in the world and is best represented by the war in Kosovo; a form of humanitarian pre-emption where countries acted to save lives and also pretect against future international instability. It would be a shame if the debacle of Iraq and the open questions remaining about Afghanistan prevent an honest debate about the good the world can do by intervening in areas such as Rwanda, Darfur and Kosovo.

Nick is right though, this whole area requires a lot of thought and discussion and not simple dismissal from those, who like me, opposed the Iraq war. Blair's philosophy may be flawed but it has a lot about it that is worth discussion and further debate.

Blair's public reluctance to accept responsibility for the shambles through his autocratic decision-making, continue to make people uneasy on this subject. Everyone knows it was a mistake but he cannot admit it. Unconditional support of the USA has all but ended following his decisions, which if nothing else, has been a positive outcome of all this. His memoirs in five years time will make interesting reading.

If the argument over whether or not we were right to go to war in Iraq hinges on our pre-empting a threat or future threat to this country - Iraq never was a threat to this country! The 'intelligence' was manipulated to make it appear that Iraq was a threat and that therefore we needed to take pre-emptive action.

Mark #39
Tony Blair in a pickle? What pickle? The UK has lost 132 soldiers in 4 years of combat in Iraq, about as many deaths as you'd expect from the crash of a single commuter plane. Has it hurt the UK economy? Not one bit, the UK still has the ONLY thriving economy in Western Europe, all the others having floundered since the recession of 2000 in the US. Brits won't appreciate Tony Blair until they are stuck with one of his mediocre muddling replacements like Cameron or Brown. Britain has forgotten what a real pickle tastes like.

This continuing Iraq debate has so far ignored one important issue which has not been adequately debated. This is the role of the Christian Right in the US and how it has influenced America's foreign policy over the last few years.

I was talking to an old friend who has just returned to the UK after 10 years living in the US. He corrected my previous statement - the Christian Right DICTATES (not influences) US foreign policy. And this from someone who is themselves a devout Christian.

Yes, I am concerned about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in the world, but I have to say I'm becoming increasingly concerned about Christian fundamentalism since it is supported by the worlds only superpower. I hate to sound as though I'm supporting conspiracy theories, but Nick's comment on the philosophy behind the Iraq war is very apt and the relationship with US fundamentalism may just be the ideological explanation.

Two points: so what terrorism existed in Iraq before the invasion?
And pre-emption maybe a philosophy (or an excuse - as the propoganda on Iran also now indicates) - but what a shame it is not provided for in international law.

There were no terrorists operating out of Iraq prior to the Bush/Blair war. Afghanistan did provide refuge for Osama Bin Laden and there was a case for the (unsuccessful) attempt to track him down and to mount war against the Taleban. The attack on the World Trade Centre was horrific and needed considered action. Iraq was not the answer.

A rathy pithy 91热爆 led endorsement for what is and will always remain, an illegal war, criminal manipulation of intelligence, untold deaths of innocent people due to the above.

I used to respect the 91热爆 enormously but it seems to become blind deaf and dumb when it comes to Blair and Bush, Israel and and its ethnic cleansing of Palestine, just because a UN resolution was passed AFTER the fact does not remove the illegality of the war.

Tony Blair is a war criminal and arbitrator of mass death and destruction of civilians, women and children and an aider and abbettor of similar when Israel did the same in Lebanon.

And Nick, you seem au fait with Mr Blair, well you can tell him from the population that there is nothing better we would like to see than Blair arraigned at the Hague, convicted, extradited to Iraq and given the same mercy that Saddam was.

I agree with the comments about pre-emption working both ways. We would be abhorred (and rightly so) if Iran attacked anybody (and that is a big if). How abhorred in the media (kind of like the official country line I suppose would be the take) if US or Israel attacked Iran? There would be some silly pre-emptive strike explaination as if WE are the goodies and They are the badies. It doesn't quite work like that. Hence why the argument for pre-emption is flawed as who is to say Iran are the badies? If US strikes Iran surely that makes the US the bad guys, they have nuclear weapons already, most wealth as well and potentially striking a country which "may be on track for nuclear weapons" is just poor show and hypocrisy. Biggest problem with pre-emmption is (as we have seen with Iraq) what if you are wrong.

I thought we had established by now that any idea that Iraq was a threat to any nation beyond Kuwait was being "economical with the truth". Tony Blair and George Bush have worked hard since the invasion to connect Iraq with terrorism.
To me, Mr. Blair's answers this morning sounded like a list of well practiced excuses for the weakness we showed in the face of the real aggressor.

Tony Blair says he cannot accept responsibility for the situation in Iraq. Only the terrorists, he says, can do that.

So...

If I go into a room, light a match, and leave it to burn, am I to blame for what happens to that room? Or are the flames responsible?

Awesome interview, clearly TB is that most dangerous kind of liar, the kind that believes his own lies.

It was an excercise in self-delusion that was pretty impressive. The reaction of this thread and the public at large is obvious - how can anyone be so self-deluded.

It makes you wonder whether we should not have concerns about TB's mental health.

I stand out from many of my friends and peers because I think that A war with Iraq is morally defensible. THIS war with Iraq can not be, though. There is a good argument which says that given Saddam would not let inspectors in, at worst we save Iraq from maybe 10-20 years of genocidal Saddam. Some power vacuum after his departure could be seen as inevitable and some of the reality of war is the lesser of two evils when compared to that.

However, the lack of a plan for humanitarian provision, lack of funds for projects, use of cluster bombs as well as the lack of policy control over matters like the disbanding of the entire army and whims of Donald Rumsfeld are indefensible. It would be good to think that other situations needing humanitarian intervention (Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe) could be next on a list after Iraq and Afghanistan, but not now. Blair and Bush have spent more political capital than they have earnt and have set public and world opinion against the UK and US and the suffering is beyond Iraq's borders.

So let me get this straight - we go after the threat instead of waiting for the threat to come to us, and then, on 7th July 2005, the threat comes to us. Answers on a postcard, please, to T. Blair, Planet Bozo, ...

As an ordinary participant in our UK democracy, I do not see how we can pre-empt anything on suspicion - there must be firm incontrovertible evidence. Anything else is wrong, including going to war on suspicion (Blair) and holding people for more than 1 minute without evidence (Police). The sad thing is that we may have to suffer an outrageous attack, even with many deaths, before we have the neccessary evidence - then we will attack, and that is what deterrence, which I favour, is all about, not pre-emption. Let's spend more on getting our Security Services, MI5, etc. better able to produce evidence.

From the day Hitler took over in 1933 until '35 or even '36, as Churchill repeatedly pointed out, Germany was almost defenceless and the relatively well armed and huge French army could have walked in and taken over. An Iraq style Nazi insurgency would surely have ensued but nearly 60 million lives could have been saved, including the 6 million plus who died in gas chambers, which did not exist in the '30s.

Pre-emption may be his philosophy but it is surely a breach of international law to enact this "philosophy". Should he not now be arrested and will this interview be accepted as evidence?

Why did the Iraq war happen ?
Quite simple really !
Bush was always going to invade Iraq
thats the reason he ran for the White House.
Why ? because Saddam made a fool of his father.
9/11 just gave him a favourable political climate.
Why did Blair go along with him ?
Nothing other than ego.
Maggie had the Falklands,Major had the Gulf War.
Tony HAD to have his war !
All the lies and deceits were just to justify these actions.

There was no terrorist threat from Iraq before the invasion. Equally, there was no doubt that an attack had been launched from Afganistan on the USA and that the USA and its allies had every right to go after those attackers, having given the leaders of Afganistan the opportunity to hand over those responsible.
Had we only attacked Afganistan, then we would have had the resources to do the job properly. This in itself would have stopped any attack from another country as the leaders of those countries would have seen the result of harbouring terrorists and letting them attack from bases on their country.
Dictators have one priority, staying in power and any threat to them staying in power, would be enough to reduce the threat.

Nick, this was a nice piece and fair also.
Contrary to some of the reporting done since the announcement that there's going to be a phased decrease in troop numbers... The Independent had an utterly disgraceful and totally incorrect headline "Retreat from Basra" by Patrick Cockburn...

I really do think the media wants to look at itself and how it operates, beginning now - as they are as much guilty of trying to spin and manufacture headlines in an effort to get attention than the politicians. Also, criticism for criticisms sake, is really beginning to generate annoyance, I'm sure within the public at large. Especially when theres not really much the government can realistically do. The people doing the criticism are often shown to be less informed/intelligent than some of the people they're criticising! Interested in good soundbytes - much more so than Tony Blair ever has been.

With reference to the pull out - this is merely (and more simply than the media is putting it down to), Tony Blair and the military seeing the bigger picture that Afghanistan is going to become (more) "hot" in the spring, and with America and Iran appearing on collision course - we're in a better position refocused / recommitted to the Afghan campaign, thus freeing up US forces already there. Why waste time and resources in areas they're not needed?

Unfortunately, too many "armchair generals" in the media and lobbyest organisations, notably professional media types who've never served a day in their life making criticisms they are neither qualified or informed enough about to make.

Nick, your statements were fair and balanced in the above. For that you deserve respect. Some of the "catchy" but totally inaccurate reporting elsewhere I'v seen of late has made me cease purchasing the paper media - and be more selective of the TV stations. Instead concentrating on the internet as a news source. I also think that the media has probably caused deaths within the military - through its negative influence on decisions / events on the ground.

The media has alot to answer for in the situation the military now faces. Faced with classic asymmetric warfare (drip-rate of casualties and figure watching), to undermine support at home, the media has been all to often first to point fingers of "panic" at the government - when the infact the only hysterics have been coming from the media themselves.

My only points made directly to Mr Blair and his successor (Mr Brown).

We need to SPEND MORE ON THE MILITARY. You're using this tool, but not giving it the loving care it needs. What will you do when our capability is gone - and some crackpot-fundamentalist is threatening to "WMD" our national interests? At some point we won't be in a position to pre-empt such an event the way things seem to be ("not) progressing.

Get the new carriers ordered! And stop wasting money and time! Too much delberation in the purchasing and orders for military orders - has led to the over-runs. We need more executive leadership, to get the assets to the forces faster!

Other than that we have alot to thank Blair for.

And on premption... who would be the first to say "they should have done something..." - when mass casualty attacks start happening as a symptom of failed states occupied by theocratic/dictator/fundamentalist regimes...?

I suggest the same people (the media and select-lobbyests) doing the criticising now - often the same saying that intervention in Sudan etc should be forthcoming... or that some dictator should be toppled.

Mr Blair will just never please them.

The First Iraq War had justification, the Second did not. Ask anyone who served in the Armed Forces (I did) during 1990 - all were in favour of aciton.

Ask those same people now - the answer is mainly "No".

And where are these WMDs? Someone should take Mr Blair to court and get him to explain under oath why he used htis argument.

Nick, re your second paragraph. I didn't hear Blair's interview but I'm surprised to hear that he justified the Iraq invasion by saying that he was "going after" the threat of Islamic terrorism. Could you post a transcript? Thanks.

I didn't even get past arguement #1 before running into serious problems: "The only people to blame for terrorism are terrorists"!! That's like saying, "the only people to blame for taxes are politicians".....the statement is technically accurate, but indicates TB's trademark stupidity in matters of reasoning and deduction.
Lucky for the PM that the good people of this country continue to bear both evils with surprising forebearance.
I for one would happily pay more taxes if it meant fewer politicians of Bliar's ilk....! Clearly the lesser of two evils.

You're making a very bad joke, Mr. Robinson.

Let's forget that we armed Saddam. Let's forget the long-term intervention in the region as a whole, and in the nation of Iraq, by ourselves and our allies. Let's forget the instability and suffering that has caused. Let's forget that US intelligence estimates uniformly agreed 'The Iraqi nuclear programme has been dead for a decade' prior to the invasion. Let's forget that those same agencies had people fired for saying that. Let's forget that a man who wrote 'Al-Quaeda in Iraq, making the case' was put in charge of providing an impartial assessment of their data. Let's forget how convieniently 'defence from WMD' morped into 'deposition of a tyrant' once the deed was done. Let's forget the concept of blowback and the reality of terrorism as not some kind of mythic beast but as perfectly predicable result of the choices made in successive foreign policies which placed national interest ahead of human suffering, so long as the humans in question are foreigners. Let's forget all of modern history, in fact, becuase that's the only way you can possibly defend statements like 'the invasion was justified' and 'the consequences unforseeable'.

The extent to which the people of this country are unwilling to stand up and claim responsibility for the actions taken in their name is shocking. This is a democracy; what our government is doing is the enactment of our will. If you don't feel responsibility and shame for what WE have done these past years, you need to revisit citizenship 101.

The US/UK invasion that turned Iraq into a terrorist Playground. Saddam was an enemy of Islamic extremists and kept them out of the country. The invasion allowed them in.The carnage in Iraq is therefore a direct consequence of the invasion. Had it not taken place tens maybe hundreds of Thousands that have died would have been alive today

I do not expect Blair to admit this, He is a man obsessed with his legacy and cannot bring himself to admit that he is responsible for what is reckoned by the Socialist worker and the daily mail alike as the worse foreign policy disaster since Munich. Admitting he got it totally wrong is made even more difficult by the fact that most of his own people passionately opposed this war and are angry at being ignored

However it is difficult to find a parrellel in British history for such an absolutely breathtaking denial of reality.

Personally I think that Blair went to war because he was possesed of an overwhelming desire to be best friends with the most powerful man in the world whoever that happened to be. This desire was more important to him than Britains interests. This can also be seen in unequal extradition treaty and what the whole world views as his absolutely unconditional support for America on issues such as Lebanon.

Because of this I think that Blairs decision to follow Bush into Iraq no matter what the opposition,or evidence to the contrary or the copious warnings he received will be debated as much by psychiatrists as by historians

For Historians a question will be why did the Political class allow him to do so.

Nick, Have a read of the Nuremburg judgements. There you will find in the clearest form the facts that offensive war has been illegal since the 1926 Treaty and that the Nazis' excuse for invading Norway - preemptive self-defence (now advocated by Bush and Blair) - is illegal, unless there is an imminent danger. This judgement shows that Bush and Blair are the war criminals and should be tried for waging illegal war. PNAC established the plans to grab Iraq and Afghanistan long before AQ got going.

As for the build-up, as Butler reported, Blair and his associates were caught in "groupthink", which filters out any inconvenient information and ramps up anything, which could be helpful, thereby negating any proper questioning of the information. It results from small groups holding the levers of power.

I am probably the only person (besides TB's wife) with this opinion, but I still think he's an honest politician whose heart is in the right place (for the most part) but after everything that has happened since the war, for me there is only one question that needs answering truthfully. When TB warned the UK about the 45 minute threat from Iraq, did he really believe that that intelligence was true or was there even one ounce of doubt in his mind. If the latter is true then TB must say sorry to the world and disappear never to be seen or heard of again.

One of the most disappointing features of these sad times surely must be the fact that none of the critical commentators above - whose idea of tough decision-making probably amounts to making a choice between Shiraz and Pinot Noir to accompany dinner - was Prime Minister immediately following 9/11.

Doubtless when faced with such an unprecedented threat to the west, these Talleyrands of the blogosphere would have steered the UK peacefully between the many and varying demands of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ariel Sharon, George W Bush, and Wall street, all the while ensuring that supply continued to meet the seemingly inexhaustible demand for petroleum of the UK electorate.

Alas, we had to make do with Tony Blair, whose palpably bizarre view was that taking the first step to end the totalitarianism (whether military, monarchical or theocratic) in the Islamic world - that, over time, has created the conditions in which pathological movements such as al-Qaeda can flourish - was a beter option than the laissez-faire accommodation shown towards the countries concerned for the past forty years.

Re David (44): I think we have a perfect right to expect of our leaders that they think things through properly before leaping into action waving the banners of good intentions. Especially when it comes to taking their countries (us) to war. Much of this situation could indeed not be foreseen in detail, but was very obviously possible or probable in general. "Right is on our side" is no substitute for a good plan for every scenario. Instead we got war declared by arrogant, lying over-optimists who steamrollered any objections by using the "friend of terror" accusation. Even the USA is beginning to realise it now that the facts are emerging. We have no excuse to claim we couldn't see this coming; that's what the MOD's super-computers are for. And we have every claim against someone who twisted the facts that did emerge to suit his own agenda.

I note that Prince Harry's regiment will go to Iraq. At least our royal family backs up this country's military commitments with real courage. From Blair I hear nothing but history being rewritten, and see nothing but blinkered stubbornness masquerading as determination. He is despicable.

Two quotes from Nick Robinson: 1) 'Too little time, in my view, is spent on the philosophy which underpinned this war and which made it unique.' 2) 'The argument about whether that is right or wrong cannot and will not be left to the historians..'

One quote from Macaulay: 'History, it has been said, is philosophy teaching by examples.'

There is nothing unique about Iraq. History is littered with examples of nations invading other nations on the pretext of pre-empting a threat to the invading state's security. But the number of times when an occupying army has succeeded in subjugating a people by force is negligible. That is what history could have taught Tony Blair, had he not been so arrogant and cocksure of himself.

Of course Mr Blair still thinks he is right. He is in denial, or worse.

Tony always justifies the invasion by referring to removing Saddam and his dictatorship "...of course, if we hadn't invaded, the brutal dictator would still be there" the implication being that anyone against the invasion is for the dictator.

Before the invasion there was much debate about the implications and many pointed out that the likely consequences would be exactly what has happened. You take the lid off long suppressed minorities and the result is a backlash leading to a civil war. It remains to be seen whether it develops into a much worse regional conflict.

In terms of Tony's responsibility, the errors would be more excusable if the concerns were listened to and prepared for as possible outcomes, rather than being dismissed as unpatriotic pessimistic irrelevancies. The man's arrogance and delusional twisting of logic and history is astounding. Why is he still in charge of the country?

Prior to the war 91热爆 World carried a number of debates from Middle East locations during which we were warned many times that the result of the war would probably be partisan fighting. Nobody listened.

Using Blair's philosophy, murderers could claim the self-defence argument simply by saying that they thought someone was going to attack them so they killed them. Such arguements are absurd and would lead to a disintegration of society so why is Blair allowed to get away with it internationally? He seems to think he is his own judge and in the past he has said that God is his judge. Personally, I think it should be the Hague!

Focusing on the philosophy of intervention, there are many reasons why the Iraq war was wrong:

1. Countries have no right to attack others unilaterally. You do not enter your neighbour's house even if he/she is harming others within. You call the police. That is why we have the UN. It is the nearest (admittedly imperfect) thing we have to a multilateral voice which may have the moral right to intervene or at least impose sanctions when given the mandate by a vote of its members.

2. Every country has the right to find its own way towards an effective form of government. Would the US or UK wish to have been invaded for others to impose their will when they were developing their system of government?

3. Intervention can be counter productive e.g. Vietnam. Also the Cold War was won without (perhaps because there was no) direct intervention.

Direct intervention against Iran would also not work. We need to be less arrogant and will likely see that they can act responsibly when treated with respect.

There are many other arguments but that's a start.

What is most disingenuous about the Prime Minister's well-practised method of answering criticism of the Iraqi war is his constant refusal to engage with the argument, virtually universally acknowledged, that the invasion of Iraq has, as a matter of fact, caused an increase in the threat of terrorism in Britain (and elsewhere) - and that it was always believed that it was likely to do so.

Blair's retort was to repeat the mantra that the invasion of Iraq does not justify terrorism. That might be correct, but it deliberately avoids answering the point. A respectable answer would be to acknowledge that the war has, rightly or wrongly, caused an increased threat of terrorism; but to explain that the government, with the help of advice from the intelligence agencies, weighed this carefully against the threat (to British interests) of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power - and came to the bona fide conclusion that the latter outweighed the former. The conclusion to be drawn from Blair's refusal to give this kind of answer is that no-one undertook this obvious analysis, properly or at all, in the run-up to the war; or that, having done so, it was decided to ignore the fact that the balance came down against military intervention. It is for failing make such an assessment, or ignoring the inconvenient result of it, that Blair properly bears responsibility (and owes an apology).

I find a parallel with the problem regularly faced by schoolkids: take the easy option to side with the bully, or the brave option to stand up for the bullied. We now favour the former apparently.

We have a nuclear deterrent, to deter other nations from attacking us. We have just chosen to renew this at great cost, even though no-one is threatening us at all. No country is more threatened, and therefore in need of a deterrent, than Iran, but they are not allowed to have one, presumably because they would then be in a position to stand up to us. The mere suggestion, backed up by the usual intelligence-based 'evidence', that they may develop WMD in the future, means we need to bomb invade and occupy them now, a decade or two before they would actually become any kind of threat.

Definition of irony: the world's leading terrorist nation declaring a "war on terror".

As the US and UK are the world's leading rogue states, perhaps next up should be to invade and occupy each other. This actually isn't a bad idea, as regime change in the US would make the world a much safer place.

The problem with prime minister's argument in favour of pre-emption is pretty straightforward. First of all, do you accept that rules of conduct should apply to everyone equally? If not, then you have to explain what makes the exempt parties special, and why the other parties should follow the rule. If you do, then you have to extend the right of pre-emption to all states equally. The consideration that triggers pre-emption is self-defence. This naturally tends to slide into self-interest, but if we stick with the standard definition, the credible threat of imminent attack, then Iraq would certainly have been justified in launching an attack on Britain and the US in the run up to the second Gulf War. Of course, Mr Blair would have felt there was something wrong with Iraq's actions, which must mean that his initial premise was wrong - reduction ad absurdum.

Responding to a perceived threat can always be justified by Government. Creating a threat that must be responded to in order to support a wider goal is where Government practices become questionable.

We did it for the oil. We love the oil. We require the oil for our big SUVs and trucks. We must preserve our paths to the oil.

Terrorists? Oh yeah, them. So we stirred up all those hornets' nests. OK. But our corrupt military infrastructure kept a steady focus on the oil.

And thanks for like-minded folks like Tony Blair and John Howard and ... for their continuing support.

The more i hear his denials of responsibility the more i believe the man is unhinged.

I also wonder if he ever asks himself would there be such a war on terror if 9/11 had happened at say Canary Wharf London and not at Trade Centers in New York. I suspect Geogre W would not have been so ready to commit US forces to help the UK if this had been the case.

I agree with your comment with regards to the 'philosophy' that that is the background to Blair's decision making. The 91热爆 in general appear to concentrate on trying to get Blair to admit that he was wrong in his approach and in the decisions he took on Iraq rather than questioning the wider premises that he espouses. This was evident in the interview this morning but runs through like a thread in 91热爆 news programmes and 91热爆 commentaries.
The arguments to the rights and wrongs of the Goverment's actions will in my opinion not be able to be judge until perhaps a further 10 years have passed. You are one of the few 91热爆 journalists who appear to be able to think outside the 91热爆 straight jacket and the tiresome press who live and die by the headline. Keep it up!

Calling Blair responsible for the militias and the death squads in Iraq is like calling Winston Churchill responsible for the final solution because he went to war with Nazi Germany.

Philosophy aside - this is a SIMPLE cast of facts. It is not just for critics, but also for his supporters and democratic citizens.

NO weapons of mass destruction!
NO UN mandate!
NO actual threat!

We have been the terrorists here - terrorising the people of Iraq. Just as bad as the IRA, Al Queda, Isreal Government, Hamas, Eta, Animal Liberation front, etc terrorise their victims. Blair has ashamed us all.

David Williams is entitled to his opinion, but really,it was a "very impressive performance". Linger on the words performance - as a student he was a keen guitarist and am-dram player - it sums up the past 3 years of this government. A right "performance"!!!

Not many of the anti-Blair replies focus on the fact that Parliament voted for the Iraq War before it started (a first)and why did 28 other countries join the fight against a dictator who was laughing at the UN

Don't let anyone fool you. The "war" in Iraq is all about money (power). It is the execution of decade old plans of Cheney/Rumsfeld. The events of 9/11/2001 were the perfect excuse to execute these plans, which otherwise would have never been allowed by the US Congress. Cheney (Bush) and I think Blair new full well that Iraq was no real threat and had no real ties to terrorism. In addition to the oil reserves and getting a solid base in the Mid-East, there are billions being made off war profiteering.

The pre-emption policy, which is historic, is unfortunately an extremely bad by-product of this part of their plans. It is the equivalent, on an individual basis, of the police arresting you because they think you might commit a crime based on your history (not current evidence). I don't think anyone in his or her right mind would support that policy.

Now you've probably heard a lot of this before and might want to just write me off as one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, but all of this is documented very well and requires minimal research (or at least did) to connect the dots. Unfortunately most US citizens are more interested in football/baseball than US or World politics. I don't know if it's the same in the UK.

There is much more to this that is happening in the USA, but that would take pages. Just one example is that Bush has created signing statements for every bill/law he has signed but disagrees with (about 1,000), saying he can ignore the bill/law by executive power. This is also unprecedented and historic.

Nick Robinson is absolutely right to emphasise the need to debate now the philosophy, and justification, for pre-emptive intervention. Oliver O'Donovan's book 'The Just War Revisited' is no bad starting point. Our political culture is so often far too pre-occupied with the next twenty-four hours, rather than the next twenty-five years.

"Europeans, intensely jealous of America's far more successful civilization want to see it hurt and hope it is somehow attacked and destroyed by Islamic terrorists. That is why they oppose every move to stop them." - Mark

What planet do you inhabit Mark!? If you think that the US has a more successful civilisation than Europe then I suggest that you have insufficient grasp of the term "civilisation". Hurricane Katrina being perhaps the most eloquent expression of the US's lack of social engagement. You're even more out of touch with reality than the politicians!!
You are right on one level though, because my dislike of perverse US policy does make me yearn for a regime change there.

Richard Simpson writes "Having served in Iraq as A TA soldier during the conflict I feel those who have strong feelings should now vent those feelings as pride for the soldiers doing a very difficult job with very little support from the idiots who keep on harping on whether the war was just or not."

Wrong. I totally oppose the war. I totally support the troops out there. No internal conflict over that, they are doing an awful job as best they can, and should not be there in the first place.

Nick, wouldn't it be interesting to do a report from the alternative Universe in which the coalition DIDN'T attack Iraq ? The one where Saddam continues to defy UN resolutions, where he continues to oppress the Iraqi people (and where the liberal/left call for his removal 'by the UN'). The one where Iran, in response to Iraqi threats about WMD, continues to develop nuclear weapons. The oil price is rising due to bellicose noises around the Gulf. The UN is exposed as a paper-tiger, riven by allegations of corruption and sanction-busting, and the US has withdrawn funding in disgust; NATO has collapsed after the withdrawal of the US into isolationism ....

This is the kind of rubbish I expect to read from someone who has spent far too much time inside the 'Westminister Village'.
The Iraq invasion was *illegal* and there are people in government who should be put on trial for it (Blair included) before they push through an invasion of Iran at the request of the Republicans.

The threat has been there since Leila Khaled and the capitulation by Harold Wilson who allowed her release when threatened by Middle Eastern terrorists. Blair's only fault or flaw is that he lied about the Irag threat to this country when simple containment may have proven to be a better approach. Any claims by him and the present very strange and misguided resident in the White House that the invasion was the only way to democracy in Iraq are so far away from reality as to defy logic. The sooner they both are removed the better.

Mark (comment number 69) I think you have certain ideas muddled up. I wouldn't call USA a more successful civilisation, civilisation we know today has had multiple number of influences especially from middle east. Back to the Prime Ministers interview he did do a fair bit of dodging and seemed to totally ignore some of Mr Humphreys questions. Now the cold war took what 35 to 40 odd years to end. This wasn't totally acheived by violent means. From what I remember it was when a significantly large proportion of the population just refused to co-operate and did their own thing. Can't really fight against a large non-violent group. In disease prevention is better than cure but this isn't necessarily through violent means. In this case pre-emptive strikes should never be used. If we can justify such a thing other nations can to and if we say we are willing then that is provocation enough. Talking has to continue.

You are absolutely right that the key question for the future of the UK is not Blair's legacy, but whether we continue with the new international philosophy of pre-emption.

The problem is that the debate has been presented -- by Blair and others -- as a choice between pre-emption and isolationism, the latter being to do nothing while others develop the weapons and strategies to destroy us. Given the choice, pre-emption is the only rational option.

But this is to perceive the world in resolutely Hobbesian terms, where the pre-emptive strike is the only reasonable choice. Hobbes himself wasn't satisfied that this was the only rational option.

There is, therefore, a third way! Those of us who oppose the philosophy of pre-emption have the articulate that third way. All I can say here is that it has something to do with global social justice.

The question that will fascinate future generations is not whether Blairs decision was right or wrong, Since the overwhelming consensus between right and left is that it has been a disaster, The consequences of which become more horrendous by the day

The real question is why he did it at all, When so many were against it, when WMD was not considered to be a threat by the rest of the world, when there so many warnings about what it could do to the region When it involved huge risks for little potential gain all of which he remained completely deaf to.

Blair has supported Bush unconditionally, and never asked or got anything in return to the point where his interaction with Bush is regarded as a text book example of submissive body language.

Blair seems to have a psychological need to be best friends with and perhaps submissive to the most powerful man in the world whoever that happens to be. this is more important to him than the interests of his own people. He refuses to admit he was wrong or apologise and outside America is reckoned to be either wilfully lying or mad

I beleive that his decision to go to war and refusal to admit he is wrong no matter how overwhelming the evidence will be debated as much by psychologists as by Historians.

A question for historians and politicians will be why the Political class supported this war despite the biggest demonstration in British History and ignored the people who they claim to represent over the most momentous decision a government can take. This has caused lasting damage in the relationship between people and Politicians.

An important mark of a democracy is that it is not supposed to go to war unless its people accept that it is necessary. Going to war against the will of your own people is the mark of a dictatorship be it military or elected.

Nick

A pre-emptive strke is an option, not a philsophy, and is neither unique or new. The fact that the option has rarely been exercised by sane, civilised states in modern times does mean that it didn't exist.

It was not taken up in reponse to the preceived threat posed sice WW2 by eg USSR or China or North Korea - or by any of these states in response to the perceived threat posed to them by NATO.

These threats to the West may or may not have been more apparent than real but they were massive when compared to the threat posed by Iraq. Pre-invasion Iraq had neither the intent nor the capacity to pose any such threat. Nor did terrorist actions against UK or USA emanate from Iraq, prior to the invasion.

At the time of the action against Iraq there were and, very worryingly, there are still a number of states which represent a much stronger case for a pre-emptive strike than did Iraq.

If we were to take up the pre-emtive option on such flimsy military grounds as existed in the case of Iraq or on the grounds of economic as well as military threat, we would be in a constant state of war.

If the reason for the invasion was as Blair now states - which I beg leave to doubt - he would need to accept that the unfolding reality has shown that the decision was based on a wrong assessment of the threat and has done very much more harm than good.

As for Blair's assertion on the disconnect between the invasion of Iraq and the current situation there, what can one say - except perhaps to suggest a change of the government's website address to "nothingtodowithmegov.uk".

Of course, the reality (at best) is that Blair does not believe what he is saying on this any more than the rest of us but is engaging in cynical, post-rationalising spin. If, however, he does believe what he is saying, then he is seriously deluded and dangerous as long as he is in power.

Either way you - and people like me by responding - do his ramblings too much credit when you call for a debate based on the Iran action being unique or representing a new philsophy.

I remember when the South African apartheid regime quoted support from Ronald Reagan to justify its policies. One offering was "not meddling in the internal affairs of others." The other argument, thanks to Kissinger and company, was that South Africa was a bastion against Communism. What does this have to do with Tony Blair? He will go down in history as the support mechanism for George Bush's ill-advised venture into Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 and Afghanistan. Blair will be remembered as Bush's "buddy," the man who single-handedly brought legitimacy to the disastrous war in Iraq that has handed Iraq to Iran and brought very great danger to the U.K. and the U.S.A.
Martin in New York

The way Britain reacts to a US plan to attack Iran will follow exactly the same trajectory as the attack in Iraq. The US will request formal "permission" to use US bases on UK territory in the attack. Having given permission, a long time will be spent to try to dissuade the US and at the same time find plausible grounds to pursuade the public to support the attack. A UN resolution is desirable but will be vetoed by Russia and China. Maybe a dodgy intellligence dossier or two will be published and the war will go ahead, probably with only UK air and navel involvement.

All this follows from the special relationship with the US based sharing on Spooks Nukes and Bases "SNUB" which was agreed in the late 1940's

As a prominant civil servant said then 'the little British gunboat will follow in the wake of the American battleship while on the bridge of the battleship the Americans will be receiving messages from the British with their long experience of international affairs', which they will politely ignore.

There is one basic problem with preemption Philosophically. If it is alright to attack a country that presents no imminent threat but possibly might do so in the future This gives the green light to any country to attack another country and if country it is alright for country A to Attack country B because it might represent a threat then this makes it a possible threat to country B who might in turn preempt Country A. This surely is a recipe for a very dangerous world.

As ever George Bush & co seem to beleive that they have a right to do what they like to whoever they like and no one has the right to do anything back all other nations as far as they are concerned shoulld tag along or bend to their will.

They are entirely incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of anyone else and understanding that their actions have reactions and consequences. Understanding for example that Guantanamo Bay is a recruiting sergeant for Alqueda and causes damage to their interests out of all proportion to intelligence gained is beyond them. In addition they seem gob smacked that having told Iran and Syria that they may be in line for the same treatment as saddam, these countries should, very sucessfully try and scupper their occupation of Iraq, though this would be obvious to any person of reasonable intelligence that it is in these countries interests to do so

Bush is a bit like a bar room bully who threatens everyone and starts lots of fights yet seems gobsmacked when someone he has threatened to hit smacks him in the gob

It's interesting how the SO OBVIOUS Tory die-hards raging in here over WMD, have only the words of Saddam Hussein(convicted and hanged for crimes against humanity)to back them up.

Tory die-hards had no other evidence of the absence of WMD.

Should we take the words of the Blair hating 'flip flopping' Tories and the words of a MONSTER as evidence of our security?

Thatcher sank the 'Belgrano' as a pre-emptive strike to protect British troops. Evidence remains that she was sailing away at the time.A war crime? or reason for a statue being commissioned?

Let's have no lessons coming from Saddam apologists and Blair hating Tories (one and the same)on world order, security and whether someone committing 'crimes against humanity' has been hard done to.

This crowd would have nice things to say about Adolf.
Pre-emptive strikes? We built an Empire and defended this Island on such a principle.

Gary

Every time Tony Blair justifies the Iraq excursion by saying that we needed to do it to "eradicate a brutal dictator", I sit pleading in vain for the interviewer to ask the following questions:

1. If pre-emption is now the justification, why was it that before the invasion there was a consistent blanket denial by Tony Blair and his pro-war ministers that it was anything to do with "regime change"?

2. What made the dictator in Iraq so special? Why are we sitting by and watching the people of Zimbabwe sugger at the hands of an equally brutal dictator?

Isn't it funny how each of those questions has its own three letter answer?

p.s - Here's one for the pub. If Wembley had been completed in time for last year's Cup Final, would Tony Blair have stuck around another year? Or did he influence the FA to delay the build so he could complete ten years in the same month as being the first to present the cup in the new stadium? Anyone for Lord Barwick? Discuss.

I once heard one of the Hutus, who help to kill 500,000 Tutsis in the Rwandan massacre, justify himself on the radio as follows: A rumour spread through the Hutus that they were going to be massacred by the Tutsis, so the only way to save their own lives was to kill all the Tutsis first. If we believe in the principle of pre-emptive attack, then we have to admit that as a sound argument justifying the Rwandan massacre!

And does it matter whether the rumour was right or not? Mr Blair says that, even though Iraq had no WMD, he was right to invade because (at the time) he genuinely believed they did have WMD. By analogy, it seems that the Hutus were right to massacre the Tutsis, even if the rumour justifying this was incorrect, so long as the Hutus genuinely believed the rumour at the time.

Those who advocate the principle of pre-emptive attack should be aware what murky waters it can lead us into.

In America the Bush administration is receiving criticism from the American public over the handling of the Iraq war. The Bush administration, which Blair stood side to side with at the beginning of all of this, pushed for war and is under siege now which is why there's rhetoric coming from the Bush administration to calm their public down which is a totally different approach to what Tony Blair has today. Maybe because the Bush administration know that they started this and spoke of bringing peace but the opposite happened so who takes responsibility? If anything it's everyone involved at least. After all, many people that were against the war warned that a pandora's box would be opened in Iraq before the war started but the "two Bs" ignored that and now Blair is backing away? Tony Blair, when he was "selling the war", said "I know my premiership's on the line" (One of the rules of leadership is "everything's your fault") so why does he want to back away when he followed Bush who he himself doesn't even mention blame embraces it? Bush talks of contaning the insurgents/terrorists today as part of the war anyway. It's all there so you decide: Bush, the "leader" embraces the responsibility without even talking about it but Blair, the "follower", doesn't? Does that make sense? Whether it's terrorists/insurgents or not Bush, the one who led Blair/Britain in the war, has acknowledged responsibility and Blair, who's acknowledged with David Frost on Al Jazeera in November 2006, that the Iraq war has been a disaster now denies responsibilty?

Just a PS really to all those advocating "preemptive action": Osama bin laden sits in his cave and says to his entourage: "You know, that Bush and his PNAC chums. They pose a huge threat to Islam and their stated intention is to take control of Moslem countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. We could not win a conventional war against them. So, let us launch a preemptive strike against the US and fly some planes into major buildings killing lots of these infidels, who threaten us. After all, the project for the New American Century, written by Rice, Cheney and all those neo-cons is clear evidence of their plans".

So, Tony and Dubya and everyone supporting them - is that okay then?

Nick Robinson writes: "It will shape how our country reacts to future threats - not least, the one that may be posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, and may be posed soon."

This is falling in with Western propaganda. Iran is no threat to us, and cannot be in the foreseeable future, given the vast military superiority of Britain and its allies. (A superiority achieved by our violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

This is how a war with Iran wil be sold - we will be told we are combating a "threat" that is not even there. By boldly stating that it may soon be there, Nick Robinson is contributing to the war effort.

Aside from the interesting debate about the philosophy of pre-emption, I would make a number of side points about Blair's comments:

When no WMD were found Blair relied on the argument that he acted in good faith; he had no choice but to act on the assessment of intelligence agencies, and it was not his fault they turned out to be incorrect.

Woah!

in the interview he was back to adamant view that Saddam's threat existed at the time!

even he seems to have trouble remembering which argument he's using this week!

Secondly, in that blokey parlance he employs, he claimed that democracy was pretty much nothing more than the ability of the people to get rid of the government through elections.

really? So things like independant judges, independant newspapers, free speech, the rule of law, dissenting political culture and so on... could all be theoretically dispensed with?

Finally, towards the end of the interview, on certain other aspects (I forget which perhaps because they were fatuous) Blair scolded Humphreys by insisting "these were the kind of questions you should be asking hm"

I see! It's not the glorious leaders fault, the questions are wrong! And this man presumes to lecture us on democracy!

This isn't about philosophy or international law, it's about survival. A malevolent nation has a secret nuclear weapons program, has sworn to destroy the US, and has proven it has no regard for human life by sending tens of thousands of missles to Hezbollah to be launched indiscriminately at civilians in the service of destroying Israel. The difference between my government and some others is that it is not going to wait around to find incontestable proof that the threat is real or for a bunch of windbags at the UN representing self serving governments who couldn't care less about America's security to give the Okay to do something. President Bush made it clear that nobody including he UN will have a veto over the use of American military power to defend itself and that the only smoking gun from an attack by a terrorist group supplied with a nuclear weapon by a rogue state like Iran might be a mushroom cloud. NO, my government is going to attack and attack swiftly, decisively, and without warning. I have already written two letters myself to President Bush urging him to neutralize the threat of Iran without any further delay and I will write more if I have to.

Chris K #129, the superiority of American civilization over all others in every meaningful way is incontestable. Furthermore, until 9-11, there hadn't been a war fought on the territory of the United States in almost 140 years. Not a perfect civilization but a much better one than all others as proven by the vast number of people around the world who come here for the rest of their lives and the countless other who want to. Many of them speak with British accents. And it is known to the rest of the world. When one million protestors in Tiananmen Square in 1989 needed a symbol, an icon of their demand for democracy, freedom, and a better life, it was America's Statue of Liberty, not Big Ben, not the Eiffel Tower. This is also why it is Al Qaeda's number one target and ultimate objective for destruction and why so many jealous people around the world hate it. Americans are not deaf or indifferent to their ill will.

When will action be taken to charge Blair Straw and Hoon for war crimes?
IF the ICC cannot act in a war that was declared illegal by the UN secretary general what is the point of this organisation?

I agree with the analogy of Country A and Country B. Let me say, I live in the heart of America. As I read the posts on this board, it appears that the hearts and minds of many both in England and The United States are of one and the same. But I do feel that bush and cheney are the ones responsible for their 'war of choice' in Iraq. One article of information that you may want to research is the PNAC. It will be interesting to know your reactions. Please take note of the signatures.

Quote: "The philosophy - if that鈥檚 not too grand a word for it - is pre-emption; i.e. countries are justified in taking military action to head off a future threat because it鈥檚 too dangerous to wait for it to materialise."

Pre-emption is not particularly controversial in international law. It is understood to mean a response to an imminent attack.

Preventive war, on the other hand, is clearly a different animal and beyond the pale.

Do we really want to espouse a "philosophy" of war that was practised by Hitler?

Andrew (125), you may not agree with Tony Blair's critics, but your analogy doesn't stand up logically for a moment. And second, Winston Churchill didn't take us to war against the Nazis. He wasn't prime minister at that time, Neville Chamberlain was. There are many inaccuracies still flying about in this sort of debate (for instance from those who still believe against all the evidence that 9/11 and Iraq were somehow connected). Let's not add to them by getting our own history wrong, eh?

First, has the terrorist threat worsened since the invasion of Iraq? Of course it has. Worrying about the semantics of whether or not the invasion justifies or excuses terrorism or whether terrorists use it as an excuse is a distraction and an irrelevance. Of course the situation in Iraq neither justifies nor excuses terrorism, but that doesn鈥檛 change the fact that the risk of a potential terrorist attack has significantly increased as a direct consequence!

Second, the philosophical issue. Tony Blair talked of it being appropriate in the 21st century to take a more global view on foreign policy. I have no great difficulty with that. We should be trying to take on Third World poverty and the political mayhem that goes along with it. The problem comes when you try to ally this with your own national interest, believing (as of course every nation would) that you are on the side of the righteous 鈥� believing you are righteous does not make you so. This approach is actually the Neo-conservative one and Tony Blair, not to my surprise, effectively allied himself with this philosophy during the interview 鈥� this would be a natural foreign policy stance for a wealthy nanny state. If we are to take a more global approach in foreign policy, the interests of other nations will usually have to be put first (because we are wealthier than most other nations) and we must also recognise that the political system, which seems most right to us in the developed Western world, may not necessarily be what is right for everyone else. Should this country be conclusively, actively and immediately threatened we are justified to retaliate. Should the international community through the UN judge that intervention in the affairs of other nations is appropriate on humanitarian grounds, then such intervention is justified. Otherwise pre-emptive action is not justified and we may have to accept that we have to live with some degree of risk in a dangerous world.

Why is everyone so timid about mentioning the R word--religion?
How can the powers-that-be spout that you cannot MIX politics and religion,and in the same breath,use the term (political solution)? More people have died and properties destroyed,in the name of religion over the millennia than any other reason.Religious beliefs and nothing else is the Achilles heel here.
Iraq is paralyzed to put together even a quasi-government-unless, the "religious"factions allow neutrality.We all know,that's not likely to happen.

Democracy is not for those who NEED it,it's for those who WANT it!

Michel De Montaigne 1533-1592
"Man is certainly stark mad;he cannot make a worm,and yet he will be making Gods by the dozens".

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde 1856-1900
"As long as war is regarded as wicked,it will always have it's facination. When it is looked upon as vulgar,it will cease to be popular".

Gary S. USA

"Going after the threat"

The only threat to us all that I can see Nick is the one in the White house.

Nick, whether he was right or wrong to invade Iraq is now academic. The fact is that it has been a hopeless disaster. Decisions taken during the war were patently poor ones, otherwise we would not now be faced with the situation as it is. I think what will emerge from this, post Blair, is that the Americans are vastly more culpable than ourselves for the failure to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and to implement a post war strategy. In a way I feel sorry for Tony, he has been sold up the river by a belligerent U.S. administration. We have emerged as virtually the only nation that didn't give America the good advice they needed in their darkest hour since Vietnam: we should have told them not to invade.

2 points:
1. The situation in Iraq is not the same as before the war. It has changed as a result of the war. The war occurred because Western leaders decided to attack Iraq. Among these Western leaders is Tony Blair. Therefore Tony Blair's actions are partly responsible for the current situation in Iraq. This is irrefutable.

2. I've seen many comments suggesting the reasons for going to war were flawed - no WMD, no imminent danger from Iraq, no need to get the oil etc. But modern Western leaders with their teams of advisers are not foolish or naive. So what has the war achieved? Created a huge amount of upheaval in a middle eastern country, with a consequent impact on its economy, trade and exports (eg oil), and created the opportunity to put Western troops in the middle east for the medium term.
So could it be that Iraq was merely a pawn, allowing Western nations the opportunity to put troops next to Iran in case they were needed when Iran's nuclear programme (which let's face it does not start from nothing in a few months) looks like a threat? While fortuitously causing some destabilisation to an oil exporter - should we be looking at who has increased oil exports since the war began?

Oh - another thought:
If pre-emptive attacks are fine, then would it have been ok for Iraq to bomb the US to pre-empt what they perceived as a danger to their safety.

I think it is very ironic actually. Bush is percived by many Americans as someone who is prepared to go to war to protect them and he is securing U.S dominance.

But he has actually had the opposite effect. Today i would say America already has less power than it once had and Bush has kicked started a international arms race and every day the U.S becomes less of a world leader.

Within 20 years i predict the U.S will have a smaller less advanced army than China and Russia and will be weaker economically.

When that day comes the U.S will not be able to bully anyone any more.

Hitler's philosophy was not one of pre-emption. He wanted to create an Empire into which Germany, and the German people, could expand while enslaving those who were there and could work for the Reich.

A closer parrellel is pre-WW1 Germany, when the threat that Germany felt from a pact of mutual protection between France and Russia left Germany feeling it would ultimately be threatened on two fronts simultaneously. It therefore chose to act first with the intention of knocking out France to concentrate on Russia.

The Blair/Bush philosophy is no less dangerous. World War was the result thenm and something similar could happen here.

What is Nick Robinson on?

"pre-emption" - the war was sold to the UK public on thr threat of WMD's - which (surprise surprise) didn't exist.

Blair & Bush may now babble about other reasons but it's quite simple they messed up big time!

If that had been me or you in our jobs we would have been fired. So why does Nick try to defend them?!?!?!

Tony, Dubya, Adolf, and plenty of others, have demonstrated that 鈥渏ustifications鈥� for 鈥減re-emptive war鈥� can always be found or manufactured. Frankly, the concerns 鈥渏ustifying鈥� Adolf鈥檚 invasions were in many cases significantly more credible as Tony鈥檚.

Integrity and fitness to govern are key issues here. In the choreographed 鈥渞oad to war鈥� what I found most disturbing - dishonest to the point of insulting - was the crude and naked determination of both the USA and UK Governments to obscure and obstruct a sensible analysis or political debate.

Now we see the results 鈥� Tony, if you refuse to address reality, you are going to end up making very unreal decisions.

Thinking back, that was a big problem for Adolf too.

George W. Bush gets his inspiration by God and, of course, the neo cons.
Tony Blair has convictions so powerful that they can not be challenged and those same convictions convinced him that it was right to follow the US to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. His convictions allowed him also to be OK with Israel bombing Lebanon. His convictions also restrained him to find a solution for the Palestinian people.

Tony Blairs is incapable to understand that going to Iraq was a big mistake, except if you try to dominate the Arab world instead of rooting out so called terrorism.
The US/UK and many other countries have actively supported terrorism when it suited their agenda.

Before the problem was important, now the problems are somehow out of control and far bigger than before.

If pre emtive wars are going to be the fashion world wide, than we all have to put on our 'seat belts'.

Congratulations.