It seems Tony Blair has decided to admit that the 2003 intervention in Iraq is, at least partially, to blame for the current crisis in Iraq. Some British tabloids assumed that the former British Prime Minister denies any connection between the current situation in Iraq and the 2003 intervention in the region, aimed at taking down Saddam Hussein. “Of course the Iraq of 2014 bears, in part, the imprint of the removal of Saddam Hussein 11 years ago. To say otherwise, as a recent editorial in this newspaper implies that I do, would be absurd.” stated Tony Blair for the Financial Times today.
Interestingly, just a week ago the same Tony Blair blamed the current Iraq situation on the “predictable and malign effect” of the crisis in Syria. In truth, perhaps there’s truth in both these statements. The situation in Syria obviously isn’t helping things in Iraq along. That being said, it’s interesting that the former Prime Minister has just now decided to acknowledge the effects of a costly (both financially and otherwise) intervention in Iraq. Still, Blair continues to believe that the current Iraqi crisis is still mostly a result of conflicts in Syria, conflicts that the Western world seems unable to respond to. Given the consequences (dire, if I may add) of the intervention in Iraq, perhaps non-interventionism isn’t the worst approach to matters?
These statements came after Iraqi Jihad fighters captured several border posts during the weekend. Some of these border posts are located on the borders to Syria, while others on the borders with Jordan. The worrying fact here is that this is a clear indication of the territorial and influential expansion of the Jihad movement. Tony Blair has been a vocal advocate of interventionism, and was one of the supporters of the Bush administration in 2013, at least as far as the Iraqi intervention was concerned. But things have changed, and the West is now more reserved in jumping into a war. What is your take on the situation?
[ads2]