Blair: 2003 invasion not to blame for Iraq crisis

[Godot51]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Miami Herald

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says the West's failure to intervene in Syria is to blame for the violent insurgency in neighboring Iraq — not the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

In an essay issued Sunday, Blair called for Western countries to intervene in Syria, though he did not specify how. He wrote that extremists "have to be countered hard" wherever they are fighting.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/15/4179646/blair-2003-invasion-not-to-blame.html#storylink=cpy

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/15/4179646/blair-2003-invasion-not-to-blame.html

---

Blair finally hits rock bottom or lower...

[sybylla]

1. Of course he said that.

It would have been news if he had said anything different.

[mikeysnot]

2. CYA

you are an idiot Blair...

[Fuddnik]

3. Blair announces he's still an asshole.

[Billy Budd]

4. Dance of the two Bums Blair is cutting in

[hobbit709]

5. The poodle is yipping again.

[ctsnowman]

7. lol Love it.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. If

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Next up: OJ denies guilt.

[bahrbearian]

9. So to intervene in Syria, would we have sold weapons to Rebels?

[marmar]

10. Sorry Tony, but your hands are drenched in blood.

[Tommy2Tone]

11. About what I would expect from Dubya's sock puppet.

Blair was a all in cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq. He actually thinks he has a legacy to protect.

[EEO]

12. Lies.

[Swede Atlanta]

13. Mr. Blair.....I don't disagree that there is no direct correlation

between the 2003 invasion and the 2014 meltdown of the Iraqi security situation. From a legal causal perspective there have been so many intervening events as to destroy the connection.

But as a practical matter they are very much linked. In 2003 Iraq was ruled with an iron first in the person of Saddam Hussein. He had ruled the country as a brutal dictator for nearly 25 years. He was a secularist whose rule was anything but based on religious hostility. He was a horrible man but I think a man who realized the country that Mr. Winston Churchill, a fellow countryman, Mr. Blair, created in the ashes of WWI was otherwise ungovernable. He knew it was a made up country, a country that consisted of strong tribal history, Kurds and both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Absolutely total control was needed to keep the country together.

So when Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush agreed to invade in 2003 and Saddam's regime fell, what did the victors do? They dismantled every instrument of government. They banished Bathists who had run the country from a bureaucratic point of view from any public positions. This left a vacuum.

The government that was ultimately put together was led by a majority Shiite Muslim, Al-Maliki. The constitution provided for a strong amount of autonomy and that was the plan. The central government would consist of Kurds and both Shia and Sunni Muslims but there would be a high degree of autonomy among these groups. Al-Maliki refused to govern with the help of the others and this has created an opportunity for terrorists.

If Saddam were still in power today would he possibly be facing an insurgency? We can only speculate.

[DonViejo]

14. Locking...

Sorry, this is a duplicate of an all ready existing OP, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014826179

Please continue the conversation at that thread.