Iraq has tested Mr Blair's interventionism to destruction
Daily Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester, 23/05/2006
There is a "new beginning" for Iraq, said Tony Blair as he flew into Baghdad in a military helicopter, unannounced and under cover of darkness. Well, maybe there is in the Green Zone.
Despite the formation of a government of national unity, the Prime Minister seemed rather reluctant to leave the safety of the heavily fortified haven and wander the streets without a flak jacket, as Iraqis do.
Even as he arrived in Baghdad, two bombs exploded, killing at least five people. More than 50 died in sectarian fighting this weekend.
Since February, when the Shia shrine at Samarra was largely destroyed in an attack blamed on Sunni insurgents, the Baghdad morgue has reported the arrival of 1,100 corpses a month.
In Basra, the British troops are back in helmets. Iraqis talk of civil war. The US ambassador admitted recently that the invasion had opened a "Pandora's box". There is growing speculation that a country which had been held together artificially for years by a dictator may have to be broken into three.
The national unity government is riven by division. Although Nouri al-Maliki has been sworn in as Iraqi prime minister, two of the most important ministerial jobs - defence and interior - remain unfilled. If this is a "symbol of hope", as Mr Blair said, then I would not like to see his icon of despair.
Of course the Prime Minister wants to get British troops out of there as soon as is practically possible. He does not want to have to face any more grieving parents than he has to.
Yesterday, he announced a phased withdrawal to take place over the next four years. But there will be no mea culpa. According to those who know him well, Mr Blair cannot admit, even to himself, that the war in Iraq may have been a mistake. "How can he?" one minister told me. "So many people have died."
What is perhaps more surprising is that the traumas - both diplomatic and military - in Iraq have not shaken the Prime Minister's belief in the more general philosophy of what he calls humanitarian interventionism..........
..........It appeals to the Prime Minister's instinctive sense of optimism and willingness to take risks; it fits with his view that the kaleidoscope was shaken by September 11. There is also a resonance in the missionary fervour with what one Cabinet minister describes as "the God thing".
When he flies to Washington for talks with George Bush this week, Mr Blair will restate his commitment to humanitarian interventionism and make the case that international institutions - such as the United Nations - should be reformed so that they would be more likely to endorse it.
And yet in Iraq it looks, at the moment at least, as if liberal imperialism may have been tested to destruction, and not just in the moral depravity of the Abu Ghraib jail.
The truth is - as increasing numbers of people who once supported the war now accept - reality is more complicated than idealism……….
…………It seems unlikely that Gordon Brown, if he becomes prime minister, will follow his predecessor's approach to foreign policy. He is more cautious, more controlling, more pessimistic. "Nothing will be the same - this is an accident of Tony and his time," one of the Chancellor's allies said.
Mr Blair, however, remains a true believer. The Prime Minister is a fan of the Richard Curtis film Love Actually, in which a youthful leader (Hugh Grant) falls in love with his tea lady - in fact, his staff recently got Martine McCutcheon (the actress who plays the tea lady) to deliver him a mug of tea as a joke.
In the film, the British leader wins public approval by telling the American president that there are limits to the special relationship. Mr Blair knows he could raise some applause by doing the same. But you can be sure that he will not have what he calls a Love Actually moment in Washington this week.
So when Dubya and Bliar embark on their next big adventure, will the disbandment of British Army infantry regiments continue at a pace, will “war crimes” show trials of British soldiers be a regular feature of that campaign, will the same “couldn’t give a damn” “New Labour” attitude to military personal and equipment armour prevail and will whatever firepower is deployed by British forces be fully available or will it stay under the wraps of ROE designed by the First Flatmate (Lord Chancellor, close friend and former flatmate, Lord Falconer of Thoroton)? God help us!