Jones the Sheepshagger is sitting in the corner of the pub, crying into his
beer and bemoaning his fate. “Did you see that library in the town square?”
he asks a passing stranger. “I built that, with my own hands. But do they
call me Jones the Book? They do not.
“And that hospital on the hill? When I sold my business, I donated that out of
the kindness of my heart. Half of my profits it took. But do they call me
Jones the Doc? They do not.
“Look at the school, the finest educational establishment in all Wales. It was
nothing before I came here. A patch of land. I paid for it all. But do they
call me Jones the teacher? They do not.
“I f*** one sheep . . .” And, yes, I know it is rather late in the day to
comment on the passing of our Prime Minister (and maybe too early for crude
jokes, although it made me laugh), but I have been scouring the political
obituaries and still no mention of Tony Blair the Sheepshagger. And,
metaphorically, that’s what he is. Even had he delivered on his promise of
education, education, education (which he did not). Even had he reformed the
National Health Service to any recognisable level (which he did not, unless
you are a well-rewarded newspaper columnist whose salary package will almost
certainly include private healthcare, so the NHS is nothing more than a
gateway to a referral and a nice private clinic with no waiting list, free
parking, landscaped gardens and a wine list for your visitors, thanks very
much).
Even had he made this country, and the world, a safer, more peaceful place
(which he did not, unless you count his admirable resolve over Northern
Ireland). Even had he achieved all of these things, and more he would still
be Blair the Biggest Foreign Policy Mistake In 60 Years And Don’t Tell Me
That We Won The War But Lost The Peace, Sunshine, Because There Was Never
Any Doubt That The War Would Be Won And The Whole Point Of Objecting To It
In The First Place Beyond Basic Illegality Was The Certainty Of Terrible
Human Cost And The Belief That PostInvasion Iraq Would Be Unstable,
Ungovernable And Worse Off.
For Mr Blair, Iraq is like Jones’s sheep. All pales beside that one action,
which is why so much of the encomiums around his departure were plain
schmaltz. He did what he thought was right for his country, bless him. Big
deal. So did Joe Stalin. So did Neville Chamberlain. So did John Wilkes
Booth. Sincerity is no excuse. The world is full of people doing what they
feel is right, which is why we judge on consequence not intent. Guess what?
Every bankrupt business really believed in the product. Every referee that
pointed to the penalty spot was absolutely convinced there had been a foul.
And every leader that committed his country to a bloody and disastrous war
was convinced of the opposite outcome.
Marshal Francisco Solano López, President of Paraguay from 1862-70 and
provocateur of the War of the Triple Alliance (a coalition of Brazil,
Uruguay and Argentina who, after years of conflict, managed to agree on one
thing, which was that Paraguay deserved a good hiding) was, like Mr Blair,
doing what he thought was right for the nation. That by the end of the
exercise half of it was dead and 58,000 square miles annexed suggests this
was a rotten call. Maybe, looking back, the marshal would have done things
differently. He may not, for instance, have decided to inflame bigger, more
powerful nations in the first place, or execute the majority of his Cabinet,
family, the judiciary, military, clergy, foreign diplomats plus nine tenths
of his civil service half way through. But we can guarantee one thing. When
he did, when he made the insane decisions that killed 80 per cent of
Paraguay’s male population, by God he was sincere.
Yet history judges López on how his plan went, not on how it was supposed to
go. Mr Blair is no different. Of course, the daily catastrophe that is
postwar Iraq was not part of his equation; the reason his legacy is holed
permanently below the waterline, and the good is overwhelmed, is that so
many had his nightmare in plain sight. Mr Blair misjudged it all: the threat
of galvanised insurgency; the divisions within Iraqi society; the
unpopularity of an invading army, no matter its mission; the ineffectiveness
and corruption of his partners; the reaction at home; the impossibility of
the predicament, which is his true bequest to the country.
In any summation of the Blair years, all bar Iraq should be a footnote. One
commentator even wittered on about Tony Blair’s Olympics. Get one thing
straight. When our six billion quid sandpit lies dormant after the 2012
circus has left town, this country will still be knee-deep in the Middle
East. Even when the military exercise is over (we can no longer suggest it
will be completed, for if we leave with Iraq in civil war, as it will be for
many years, we depart with the job unfinished), the ramifications of
cultural division at home will echo.
Ultimately, on June 27, we will lose a Prime Minister whose judgment on the
most significant foreign policy issue since the Second World War was
slightly less insightful than that of Kitten from Big Brother 5,
who lasted one week, contrived to vote for herself to be evicted, cost the
remaining housemates £9,000 in prize money and claimed to be working as a
prostitute at the age of 16 until it emerged she had spent her teenage years
enrolled at a private girls boarding school in Staffordshire. She did,
however, publicly oppose the Iraq war.
Unlike Gordon Brown, Mr Blair’s successor. He voted for it, too, so what does
that make him? Jones the Sheepshagger’s mate.
MikeM says Blair had to believe the intelligence on WMD.
Even though it came from opponents of his regime with a vested interest in stirring up opposition? One should always question the motives and accuracy of such information but we didn't because it was what we wanted and expected to hear!
Ian, Lincoln, Lincs
I wish to thank Mr Blair profusely, for, along with the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern for facillitating the ceasefires, agreements, decomissioning and devolution of Government we have recently been privilege to.
R Byrne, Omagh, Northern Ireland
across the pond I marvel at Europe in many ways but mostly i marvel at its state of denial (we ahve them too, i am not beign smug) - who created Iraq in the first place? who drew those borders so that tribes would forever squabble throughout the region and beyond - all so we in the west could go hoover up the oil? It won't change till we don't have any use for the oil. We all made the mess and continue to make the mess so don't blame tony blair.
marianne, ilium,
Matthew Hunt, London and MikeM, St Albans
I suggest you read Robin Cook's "The Point of Departure" which may confirm your assertions of the rationale behind the UK's involvement in the Iraq invasion. You need to be aware that despite, obviously, not being under any threat of legal action, he is rather oblique in stating his beliefs and conclusions, so you have sometimes to read between the lines to gather his true meaning. On non-Iraq issues he's much more lucid and direct. It's strange.
Thank heavens, at least, that Hutton gave such a clear signal to the people and the media that we have a free hand to investigate and discuss, rigorously and without restriction, the basis of the Government's decision to take us into war. It's such an important subject to us all, and it would have been hugely damaging to democracy if we had been prohibited from entering into public discussion premises for which we do not have proof at the level required in a court of law.
Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK
I'd like some advice here. If, at some stage in the future, I believe that a Government has adopted an approach to truth that is at the level of an unscrupulous estate agent, and if, at that time, I believe that this is not how I believe elected politicians should behave, and if there is a threat to use public funding to pursue through the courts anyone who raises, or publishes, doubts about the quality of the Goverment's honesty, how best could I get a discussion of my unease into the public arena?
I appreciate that not everyone will be willing to involve themselves what is obviously a hypothetical question, but, all the same, I'd be very grateful if there were someone prepared to give me some guidance.
Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK
Brilliant - I wish I'd written that article!
joe, brussels, belgium.
Whilst one can debate whether or not Tony Blair's New Labour has improved the NHS, raised academic standards, stabilised the economy, politicised the police or brought the hope of lasting peace to Northern Ireland , for me it is almost beyond discussion that the unfolding tragedy that is Iraq should render that debate inconsequential. But what isn't inconsequential is the corrosive effect Tony Blair has had on British democracy. By the way, I know that boyo, Jones. It was my sheep!
Pauline, Cardiff,
Ironically, Iraq was the only thing Blair did that made me feel he had convictions. Whatever you may say about the current situation, it was hardly ideal to sit and leave Saddam in power, particularly with the evidence and argumentation presented to Tony Blair at the time. Those who call him a liar are both lazy and deceitful, Blair did do what he thought was right. As for the legality, laws are for man not man for laws, you could say the same about any war of intervention.
Samuel's analysis is both crude and spiteful. Even if you did not agree with Blair's decision to go into Iraq it is very harsh to judge a man on one percieved fault. You have to do what you think is right given the facts at the time. We can't all be Chiracs.
Matthew Hunt, London,
And this is why I read the Times! Love the piece.
Anamika, London, UK
Iraq is Blair's ONLY legacy. The killing of 655,000 innocent civilians in 4 years, overshadows everything he has ever done and everything he will ever do. Northern Ireland? 3400 deaths in 40 years...and the peace is as much to do with Osama bin Laden as Blair. Only after 9/11 did the US authorities decide that it was illegal for it's Irish communities to sponsor terrorism in the UK.
Iman, Watford,
I have little respect for Blair or his wretched government: but I have less for the 20/20 hindsight brigade, to which Mr. Samuel apparently belongs.
"And The Whole Point Of Objecting To It . . . . ", - read it again.
So Samuel and the large number of protesters(natural descendants of the 50's-60's CND campaign, and including school-kids truanting), at "Stop the War" were apparently better informed than the government ,or my humble self, even before the Iraq invasion, or no WMDs were discovered?
Blair had choices:
1. Believe intelligence that Saddam had WMD's but ignore it.
2. Believe etc. and do something about it.
3.Eat grass.
Illegal war?
By original UN standards, just maybe.
By the modern UN ?- they wouldn't agree on the colour of their toilet paper, without referring it for several years to find out which of them was supplying it. - so why would they approve anything?
I back Bush and Blair on this.
MikeM, St. Albans, England
But, if we want to be fair and just, we don't "judge on consequences not intent" as the author says. That is why we have verdicts of manslaughter instead of murder where the killing is not intended.
So, if we want to be fair and just to Tony Blair, we have to take into account his intentions which were essentially to free the people of Iraq from and evil dictator. Clearly that intention was good which distinguishes it from the intention the Paraguyuan President Lopez apparently had. It is irrelevant to this distinction that both intentions were sincerely held.
If we want to be fair and just and judge on the basis of intention, it is surely Al-Queda and the other insurgents who are guilty rather than Tony Blair and George Bush. They actually intend to commit all those atrocities against innocent civilians. Again, their sincerity is irrelevant to their guilt once intention is established.
v k ratliff, london, uk
Brilliant man. I always look forward to reading Samuel's articles and am equally appalled by the Iraq war.
Elen, london,
Someone made a comment about the American's 'not forgetting' that Blair & the UK stood by them on Iraq. Sorry, that's nonsense. I am a Brit living in New York, and if it wasn't already painfully clear to everyone in the UK - America has already forgotten. Look at the way the Bush administration has treated it's closest and most loyal ally ever since. The UK's support of and doffing of cap to the US is taken for granted. The UK is regarded as an obedient lap dog by this US administration, and Blair would have earned a lot more respect, and favour with future administrations, if he had stood up for what was right on Iraq, instead of blindly obeying and turning our country into little more than a sycophant. If the Democrats had been able to find a candidate more interesting than a paper bag, Iraq would have cost Bush his presidency a couple of years ago. It should have cost Blair his premiership too. Good riddance, Tony - you messed up - learn to admit your mistakes.
Robert Stone, New York, NY
Dear Mr Hutchinson,
I have lived and worked in London for the full ten years' of Blair's reign (my first day was May 1st 1997).
Everything provided my the government, health, education, policing, the enviroment and transport has gotten progressively worse.
After working in the NHS since 1976, I now pay BUPA subscriptions for my family. My childrens education has been apalling, but I could not afford private schools. I cycle most days 14 miles to work in the same time it takes me to drive, public transport takes twice the time and costs more than the petrol.
Do you Mr Hutchinson live in the same London and same country that I do?
B Samways, London, UK
I'm not fan of Blair - in the words of another prominent columnist, he's just fluff - however, I can't blame him for Iraq... I don't think anyone was expecting the situation that has developed.
Our perception was the country was a well educated populace bearing the brunt of a brutal repression that was beyond their control.
They respected England as an ally, and would willingly fall into peaceful self-rule, given the opportunity to do so by an external 'liberating' force.
What we had not counted on was how deeply ingrained the tribal rivalries had become under the divisive political tactics of Saddam Hussein.
(& it Really hasn't helped that we had the Americans along for the ride, who insist on calling peacekeeping the 'War Against Iraq')
Mark, Woking, UK
Precisely what about going to war over some god-forsaken rock just off the coast of another country that we think we own is legal?
Ben, York,
"so much of the encomiums around his departure were plain schmaltz" - I wonder which encomiums Mr. Samuel is talking about, because almost everything I have read has made exactly this point - i.e. that anything positive done by Blair is eclipsed by Iraq.
I note that he says that Blair has not made the country more peaceful and then adds the caveat "unless you count his admirable resolve over Northern Ireland" - rather a signficant qualification, don't you think?
Regardless of what you think of Blair, it is difficult to grasp how right-of-centre critics can use Iraq against him. The Tory Party overwhelmingly supported the war and would have done so had they been in power. Blair's legacy has been undermined by the transatlantic relationship - would this have been avoided by a leader from the Conservative party, for which the 'special relationship' is a corner stone of foreign policy?
John, Oxford,
It is often said that Tony Blair deserves credit for the outbreak of peace in Northern Ireland. Perhaps, but there is one person - never mentioned - who really deserves alot of credit. His name: Bin Laden. The reason – and being staunchly pro-American it pains me to say this - is because in the wake of 9/11 – the first terrorist attack on US soil - it was no longer possible for Irish Americans to support the Irish republican agenda through violent means. Their withdrawal of support – from both sides of the political spectrum: Democrat and Republican – and on the contrary their new opposition to terrorism, left the IRA with no choice but to change course and bring a halt to their violent campaign. Tony Blair undoubtedly helped the cause through his strong support for the US, both at the time of 9/11 and since then, but I would suggest in the context of the Northern Irish peace process he was lucky to be in office at the right, or I guess more appropriately the wrong time.
MN, London, UK
After A. Burke,
Yeah, my guess is that Tony Blair will make a boat load of money on the U.S. talk circuit, the idea that an elected Labour Prime Minister immediately ran to Margaret Thatcher to be given a lecture on world politics is preposterous. Margaret Thatcher: the Falklands war, morally correct Yes, successful Yes (despite American opposition). Don't Blame Margaret Thatcher for Iraq this is stretching the grounds of credulity.
Phil, York, U.K.
Now I'm not a Labour supporter or a Blair fan, and I despise him for the Iraq war, but this article is myopic. How about:
Minimum Wage
Civil Partnerships
Booming economy for years
Better NHS (and I don't have private healthcare!)
Devolved govt re-installed in N. Ireland
State-funded childcare + paternity leave
To suggest that ''In any summation of the Blair years, all bar Iraq should be a footnote' is to clumsily reduce British politics to a single issue. Yes, Iraq is a grave mistake that will affect a generation. It was an illegal war. However, that does not suddenly mean that achievements at home are null and void.
So, instead of writing a petulant article about how nothing else matters, why not write your own Blair political obituary that takes in the whole legacy of the last 10 years, both good and bad? But I suppose then it wouldn't fit in with the sheepshagger joke, which is the only real reason you wrote the ill-conceived article in the first place.
Hugo Hutchison, London, UK
After all the intelligent and sophisticated analyses over the last few days of Blair's premiership, we might have guessed that Samuels would provide the London cabbie's version, with its one-eyed certainties and sledgehammer subleties.
The "results" of Blair's decision to join the coalition are indeed disastrous in absolute terms. However, history will judge that there was a genuine belief that Saddam had WMD and that the possible nexus of terrorism with his weapons material was a threat to the West that had to be removed.
Blair took one of several decisions that were possible at the time.
If we had not joined the coalition and the USA had invaded alone, the mess would have been just as bad and maybe worse.
If he had persuaded Bush to leave Saddam in power, he would by now have rebuilt his WMD stocks with oil revenues, and the threat to Western cities via a WMD attack would have been far higher.
Blair took the least worse option and believed he was right to do so.
He was.
arnoldo, Coventry,
Absolutely spot on. Blair's legacy is Iraq. He is trying desperately to make it Northern Ireland, climate change, saving the Middle East peace process, rescuing the starving children in Africa, in other words being all things to all people, simply to cover up the disaster that is Iraq and its long term repercussions in the world.
Caroline Kennedy, San Jose, Costa Rica
At least the only mistake Jones made was the sheep. Except for Northern Ireland, it's tough to think of any area of life that has improved after ten years of Blair.
Philip, Dubai,
In my opinion the damage Bush and Blair did was lying - which eroded esteem of people in politics. Whom can you trust? Blair seemed genuine; he came across as to change the world. As they say: 'the road to hell is littered with good intentions' so is this road to Baghdad. Alas, everyone has to pay for this folly.
Instead, I wish he sermon on non-violent means - from removal of Saddam to getting rid of poverty, prejudices and ignorance by touching the cord of inner conscience in each one of us. Having the policies of inclusion and challenging adversaries to see the good in others and to work together, as in Dublin.
I wonder why faiths can't agree to shun violence; devoid of this the culture of guns holds sway and we will parish under its blaze. Blair's messianic urges could have made the difference; he is still 54, hopefully in days ahead he would work passionately to accomplish which he didn't at No.10 as Al Gore is doing without being the President of the United States.
Rajeev Mehta, Auckland, NZ
Blair had little choice over Iraq. Remember that meeting he had with Margaret Thatcher when he became PM, and went to her - the woman who was technically his most formidable opponent in the UK - for practical information on how to do the job? You can bet your bottom dollar she told him to preserve the Atlantic Alliance whatever the cost. And that's what he did. He supported Bush in the illegal invasion of Iraq, even though he knew - as a graduate in Law from Oxford - that it was a gross violation of the UN Charter.
George Bush Jnr is a naughty little boy who decided to make a public exhibition of his own father, who had previously ousted Saddam from Kuwait, under a UN mandate, but - being a law-abiding elder citizen of the world - did not proceed to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Tony Blair suppported Bush Jnr, in order to preserve the Atlantic Alliance and do precisely that. A case of "my ally, right or wrong." My guess is that the Americans won't forget that he stood by them.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
Excellent article, well done.
John, LONDON,
Easier in this life to pass on by and do nothing, eh? That way we don't soil our reputations with unintended, unfortunate consequences.
GC, Harrogate, UK
The sheep in this Blair story is Iraq, I am sure that is how the population feels.
Trevor Nye, Ceauce, France
I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that Blair blundered big time regarding Iraq.
However, no matter how much you may hate him for that, his legacy is not only Iraq, though that colours it black indeed.
The peace in Northern Ireland at least is to his credit.
Jim, London, UK
great comment, nothing else to say.
Do you have any politicians in britain that voted against the war ?
Liberals ? green party ?
Bliar or brown, it will make no difference in foreign politics..
florian, Cologne, Germany
aint that the truth
John Forward, Melbourne, Australia
At last someone who tells it like it is. Mr. Samuels is almost 100% right about Blair and the promise of so little. Historians 50-100years hence will not simply condemn Blair for Iraq, but also for his fialure on a raft of other issues.
Mr. Samuels gives Blair credit for Northern Ireland, as have many comentators over recent weeks. I will not even concede that to Blair. McGuinness, Mo Mowlem, Clinton and even Major deserve as much if not more. And of course 9/11 which seriously undermined Sinn Fienn, Noraid and the Republican movement that espoused violence.
Blair will need more than the Hubble telescope to search out his "legacy". I fear unlike Jones, Blair hasn't shagged just the one sheep - probably the whole farm yard.
Benedict Bannister, Paris, France
While the language is somewhat crude, the idea behind it is absolutely spot on! I was at a protest rally in Nice, France where I live, on the day Bush invaded Iraq. The rally was organised by two Americans living in France, surprising enough perhaps, but what surprised me even more was the blindess, the deadly lack of foresight shown by Bush and Blair, of what an invasion would bring - more bloodshed, insurrection, further pockets of terrorist activity around the world, millions displaced, a divided Iraq, and all that before we even get to the illegality of the war.
Madness, utter bloody madness, but will the decision makers ever pay for their mistake? Is the road to hell paved with bodies from Bagdad?
Francis O'Hara, Nice, France
Interesting commentary on how the 'fog of war' blinds all other perceptions.
Only one thing matters? Well, how about paying off more of the National Debt in one year than all governments,collectively, in the previous 50 years had paid off?
In my perception, that mattered and still does.
Keith, Bengtsfors, Sweden
But it is not true that we "judge on consequence not intent" as the author asserts. That is why, because we want to be fair and just, we have verdicts of manslaughter instead of murder where the killing was not intended.
Similarly, if we want to be fair and just to Tony Blair, we have to take into account his intentions which were essentially to free the people of Iraq from an evil dictator. That is clearly a good intention and is therefore distinguishable from the intention the Paraguayan President Lopez apparently had. It is irrelevant to this distinction that both intentions were sincerely held.
If we want to be fair and just and judge on the basis of intent, it is surely Al-Quaeda and the other insurgents who are guilty. Again, their sincerity is irrelevant. What makes their actions wrong is that they actually intend the atrocities they commit against innocent civilians.
v k ratliff, london, uk
Not a bad column on geopolitics for a soccer reporter. A quibble though: Iraq was the one policy that Mr. Blair adopted which was correct.
Derek, Shanghai,
'a Prime Minister whose judgment on the most significant foreign policy issue since the Second World War'
Curious that the entire of the Cold War (and break up of the British Empire, the Soviet Bloc) has been evacuated from journalistic memory. I was brought up to believe we were teetering on the brink of nuclear destruction and all those nuclear talks etc etc were prettty significant. Time will judge how Mr Blair is remembered, not a dozen hastily written encomium and criticisms.
David van der Hugo, Sendai-shi, Japan
No Martin,
It is not only about Iraq.
It is about a "man" faced with a lack of donations to an all but bankrupt organisation - decreed them to be loans. HOW where they to be repaid??
It is about a "man" who has destroyed the United Kingdom!!!
Blair is a disaster - a disgrace to his name, his school, his college and his party!!!!
DavidN, melbourne,
So what situation would we be in now had the conservative party been in government instead of Labour? At the time Michael Howard said that he would have gone to war in Iraq, irrespective of whether there were weapons of mass destruction. Thus, had the conservatives been in power, we would still be facing the same problems in Iraq as we do now. The only difference would be that the decision to go to war would have been based on morality rather than a belief that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of the rest of the world. So if the war in Iraq would have happened under the next biggest political party anyways, is it not right to judge Tony Blair on the things that he did achieve in office?
Darren, London,
Correct all the way through,though I know that for the next 6 weeks we will have all the bluster and spin on how wonderful Mr.T.Bliar has been as our PM.
What I want to know is,can we have articles about Bliar from those who wrote him up as the next Messiah back in 1997 and what they think now.
Nigel Wheatcroft, wimbledon, UK
About time we had a bit of bite from The Times. You've been on a downward spiral of luvvie obsequiousness for far too long.
clive, surrey,
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions - Karl Marx
V. Foley, Princes Risborough, Bucks
The media is full of TB's record in office. On the same day the Deputy Prime Minister also announced his resignation, yet not a word about his achievements! After all he has done it doesn't seem fair.
David, Oxford,
A top weight analysis of the miserable effect Blair has had upon British poitics and world affairs. And now we have the rather obscene spectacle of Gordon Brown attempting to shed his New Labour skin along with all of Blair's warts,
Robert , Kirk Ella., East Yorks.,
A great article that mirrors my feelings exactly. To hear Labour MP's wittering on about Blairs legacy whilst blatantly ignoring the awfulness of Iraq is sickening.
No amount of spin will cover this error of judgement or the arrogance and ignorance of Blair in making it. For the leader of a country to use the excuse that 'I thought it was the right thing to do -therefore it's ok' is quite frankly pathetic. As you say any one of a dozen monstrous world leaders have held the same conviction in making terrible decisions. History I fear will not judge you kindly Mr Blair.
dominic forrest, London, UK
Superb. An eloquent piece succeeding where so many journalists fail - making an intelligent and well-observed point in an entertaining way. Refreshing.
Ross Liversidge, Ripon,
Admirable resolve over Northern Ireland? This would be the resolve that has robbed ordinary people of poiitical representation by anyone other than thugs and extremists?
mark mcfarland, dubai, uae
Excellent! This essay says clearly what needs to be said and the argument is encapsulated in the quote 'we judge on consequence not intent.'
No amount of good intent and gurning at the cameras will alter the fact that Iraq will be the millstone around the neck of the country long after Tone has gallavanted off on his lecture tour.
Sarah Mitchell, Hong Kong,
Great piece
Steven Roberts, Waltham Cross, UK