The anti-Blair campaign, moreover, has been buoyed by claims made by Geoff Hoon, Britain’s defence secretary at the time, that Downing Street ordered his principal private secretary to destroy a sensitive memo questioning the legality of the conflict. Given the brutal animosity Mr Blair has endured from his political opponents, on both the Right and the Left, it is hardly surprising that a petition calling for his knighthood to be blocked should attract hundreds of thousands of signatures. His appointment as a Knight of the Garter is a fitting reward for displaying such fortitude. So when the Bush administration declared war on rogue states, it only strengthened the British leader’s resolve to deal with the Iraqi dictator once and for all.īy sticking with his convictions when others would have crumbled in the face of the ferocious opposition he faced, Mr Blair showed the courage of a true statesman – on a par with Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands conflict. Mr Blair’s determination to confront Saddam, therefore, preceded the September 11 attacks. Saddam’s constant obstruction of the inspectors – a key factor in the “flawed” intelligence that was later compiled on Iraq’s WMD – even resulted in the US and Britain resuming air strikes against Iraqi targets in 1998 as part of Operation Desert Fox. In the bitter controversy that has raged over the Iraq conflict during the past two decades, one key factor that is constantly overlooked is Britain’s long-standing involvement in confronting Saddam dating back to the First Gulf War.īritish warplanes were involved in enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq for most of the 1990s as Saddam refused to comply with the terms of the ceasefire – UN Security Resolution 687 – that required him to allow teams of UN inspectors to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction arsenals. Mr Blair’s resolve to confront Saddam was borne of his understanding that, in a world still struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a tyrant like Saddam could not be allowed to maintain his constant acts of provocation against the West and its allies, or indeed his brutal repression of the people of Iraq. When the US president, on the eve of the invasion, offered him the chance to withdraw from the coalition, the British prime minister replied: “I’m staying, even if it costs me my government.” I remember George W Bush saying, when I interviewed him at the White House after the invasion, that Mr Blair told him he was prepared to lose power rather than back down on his commitment to tackling Saddam.
Having abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban last summer, does anyone seriously believe that Joe Biden and Boris Johnson have the mettle to stand up to modern-day tyrants like the Russian President Vladimir Putin or the ayatollahs in Tehran?īy deciding to ally himself with the Bush administration’s campaign to remove Saddam, Mr Blair knew full well that he was putting his political reputation on the line, not least because of the fierce resistance he encountered from his own backbenches. The misrepresentation of intelligence relating to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and the lamentable lack of post-conflict planning, are two of the more obvious areas where Mr Blair, together with acolytes like Alastair Campbell, hardly covered themselves in glory.īut on the fundamental issue of whether to commit Britain to supporting the US-led campaign to overthrow Saddam’s brutal dictatorship, Mr Blair displayed moral courage of a very high order, a quality one suspects today’s generation of conflict-averse politicians would struggle to emulate. Mr Blair’s handling of the Iraq brief was by no means faultless, as the numerous inquiries into the Iraq affair have demonstrated. But they should not include his decision to support the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. There are many sound reasons why people might question the award of a knighthood to Tony Blair, from his botched reform of the House of Lords to the curse of devolution.