Is Tony Blair capable of shame?
The former British Prime Minister and War on Terror archetect has weighed into the debate on the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
The first issue with this is that his arguments are disengenuous as well as wrong. He talks about the progress and gains made: these gains are in Kabul alone and in no way compensate for 241,000 lives lost and an economy decimated by a twenty year civil war. He mentions that no allied troops were killed over eighteen months but neglected to mention that this is includes a long period in which a ceasefire was signed to withdraw troops.
In Blair's imagination, to call this a 'Forever War' is an 'imbecilic argument' . Fair enough Mr Blair, twenty years is not forever, its just a very long time. Also, it might only have lasted another forty years so that is obviously good enough.
This is a deluded man who has nothing to contribute and is fighting a losing battle to save his legacy.
After 9/11, Bush and the American neo-cons needed an ally to give them the veneer of an international consensus to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair, as a European Liberal, was perfect for that role. He enthusiastically made the case for conflict, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction plans which never existed. At no stage has he apologised or expressed remorse.
Over time, British public opinion has turned sharply against Blair because of his role in these awful and murderous wars. His approval ratings are deep subteranian but he still gets platforms for his views because he still has plenty of friends within the British establishment.
In a way, I'm glad he is getting involved. His intervention serves as a reminder for how these wars began and how dishonest the justifications were.
The first issue with this is that his arguments are disengenuous as well as wrong. He talks about the progress and gains made: these gains are in Kabul alone and in no way compensate for 241,000 lives lost and an economy decimated by a twenty year civil war. He mentions that no allied troops were killed over eighteen months but neglected to mention that this is includes a long period in which a ceasefire was signed to withdraw troops.
In Blair's imagination, to call this a 'Forever War' is an 'imbecilic argument' . Fair enough Mr Blair, twenty years is not forever, its just a very long time. Also, it might only have lasted another forty years so that is obviously good enough.
This is a deluded man who has nothing to contribute and is fighting a losing battle to save his legacy.
After 9/11, Bush and the American neo-cons needed an ally to give them the veneer of an international consensus to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair, as a European Liberal, was perfect for that role. He enthusiastically made the case for conflict, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction plans which never existed. At no stage has he apologised or expressed remorse.
Over time, British public opinion has turned sharply against Blair because of his role in these awful and murderous wars. His approval ratings are deep subteranian but he still gets platforms for his views because he still has plenty of friends within the British establishment.
In a way, I'm glad he is getting involved. His intervention serves as a reminder for how these wars began and how dishonest the justifications were.
41-45, M
