His latest entry, http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/right_again.html explains why he thinks Tony Blair was right over Iraq.
The money quote for me is:
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein by force - for there was no other way to topple his regime - was an act of outstanding moral clarity and strategic importance. I pay tribute to the PM for having seen this point so early, and for having it carried it through despite the opposition of many in his party and elsewhere.
He seems to be saying that Tony Blair saw that regime change was necessary and did what it took.
My problem with the "moral clarity" is that Tony Blair sold the war to the public and Parliament by insisting that it wasn't about regime change, but about Saddam's refusal to implement UN Security Council resolutions and/or about a clear and present danger to the security of the UK posed by weapons of mass destruction.
Let's assume that Blair's reason or going to war was as suggested by Oliver Kamm. Surely this should have been publicly debated? The political process is debased when the Prime Minister is not prepared to put a case of such "moral clarity" to the public, presumably because he judged it would be rejected.
Oliver Kamm frequently castigates Noam Chomsky for what he terms sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. His comments on Tony Blair seem to mirror Chomsky's approach to the truth, except that he comes to praise rather than bury. A large part of the case against Tony Blair's approach to Iraq is surely that he didn't have the courage of his convictions (as attributed by Oliver Kamm) but tried to pursue a second rate and bogus rationale for the pursuit of the war, and in the end seems to have discredited any valid case he had for the war.
No comments:
Post a Comment