Tony Blair chose to serve American interest instead he would concentrate to improve the duty he was elected for which were to serve the British people who have got a lot problem in wide range of issues. The reason he chose to serve USA was not to experience the threat which the labour leader experienced in the last time the labour was in power.
Now is out of the 10 Downing street with tears and regret and being remembered as an evil leader who execised a cowboy policy in the modren world. Now one on this earth has respect for him, while John Major has every body' s respect and will be rememebered as a leader with moral and dignity.

william robert, london , UK

"Why", asks Time Hames, "shouldn't he think that removing odious dictators is worthwhile?" From the Conservative viewpoint there is one very clear reason why. The rule of law is a fundamental Conservative principle, and in my view it is more important than the Atlantic alliance. The right to self-determination of a sovereign member state of the United Nations is not conditional on that state's internal policies. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, and the judicial assassination of its head of state, may seem "worthwhile" from the perspective of cowboy politics, but it was undemocratic and illegal in terms of international relations, and in my view has nothing to do with true Conservatism.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

The tyrants motive for creating the illusion that Iraq had WMD, was because Saddam was more worried about looking weak to the Iranians. Saddam never trully believed that the Americans would invade. What Saddam didn't Know was the Americans were looking at Iraq instead of Afganistan as the place to unleash their fury after 9/11.
American military stratagists advised against full scale military commital in Afganistan, they wanted an easy victory to perk up the American public after 9/11, they would not of had that had they gone all out in Afganistan.
I believe that Bush should have left Saddam in power, where by Iraq could have maitained some sort of status quo with the Irainians. Is it not the Irainians who sponsor terror?
The irony of it all is that America chose the wrong enemy

David Pope, Svendborg, Denmark

Tony Blair has set an agenda of spin,half-truths,superficiality and shomanship.His departure is frankly revolting as he tries to milk everything for his advantage.The depressing thing is that the British people were taken in three times.He has done nothing to tackle the fundamental issues and G.B. is a worse,more dangerous and socially-divided place than ever. Bring back Maggie!!!

c.i.dYTOR, Reading, Berkshire

While I don't agree with your opinion completely, I am also glad that you've somewhat defended Blair's decisions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I wonder what his opponents would have done if they had been placed in his position. With Iraq he would not have won public support either way: go to war and be seen as 'a George Bush ally to end' and murderer or decline to intervene and be labelled 'a weak leader'. People are fickle, and they can never be pleased; the years under Blair prove this.

He has done many things for the country: I do believe the economy to have improved, I think the success in Ireland was a great achievement, and I think his negotiation skills (EU treaties, for example) should not be questioned.

Blair says, "history will judge me". But I feel even that may be eclipsed by the War in Iraq. Personal dislike for Blair clouds judgement, I feel.

Amber, Stevenage, England

Michael W Stone - if PMs are remembered for only one thing, what is it that Thatcher is remembered for - Poll Tax or the Miners or the Falklands?

My point is that Blair has been in power for 10 years - maybe he deserves two (or three) things, like Thatcher, to be remembered for

Rob Gaudin, Torquay, Devon

Well, you're entitled to your superficial opinions.

As if the Iraqi's had any say in the matter! They lived in a dictatorship and now live in anarchy. In between they participated in the election of a government which is being maintained by American bayonets. Soon, when the Americans leave, they will live in a Civil War. Which Iraqi had any say in this?

Ernst Grosskopf, Alton, Hants

It's true that Blair believed that Iraq had WMDs - no lie. But he knew that the intelligence was dodgy - Hanes says that "CIA and MI6 were groping in the dark" - yet he said that the intelligence was clear and compelling. That was the lie.

And he is wrong to think that removing dictators, however odious, is a sufficient justification for war. The 600,000 dead in Iraq show why.

But above all he is wrong to suppose that we should base our foreign policy on our desire for power. In my view we should start with morality. And to support the US in a war that was bound to fail - as it has - was wrong.

Tim Hanes may be indifferent to morals but the British people are not. Blair knew they would not support a war for power, or oil.

David Flint, London,

The invasion of Iraq was foolish and any thinking person could have predicted the outcome. That we should pull out is equally obvious, there is no more Iraq either to occupy or save. It will inevitably end up as a collection of mini-states under the power of the very nasty states that surround them. The late dictator was a much better bet. At least he was a secularist

We are in a world war with Islam which is the most misguided major religion on our planet. Saddam was, ironically, our ally in that war.

Bob, Reno, NV

I am appalled by Tim Hames' defence of Blair over the Iraq War. First he seems quite ludicrously suggest that we were bound to follow American foreign policies however ridiculous they might be. Then he passes over major aspects of Blair's actions. Presumably he finds dodgy dossiers which include, inter alia, ten years old internet theses quite acceptable (this is war, for God's sake). Presumably he finds Blair describing intellegence as "widespread, authoritative and growing" when he KNEW it was "sporadic and patchy" as not worth a comment. I suggest Tim Hames watches and watches again the Blair speech which includes the quite ridiculous "45 minute" claim and then comes back and tell us all that he didn't lie.
It is a scandal of monumental proportions that not one single person in government has been forced to resign and brought to book over this issue.

Jim Taylor, Loughborough, UKI

"Who cares what lies on the positive side of the ledger?"

The 'ledger' had a positive side? Really? Where? What?

Michael, Brighton, England

Polish troops FOUND WMD in Iraq after the invasion! How much more proof do you want? And how exactly is the Falklands a just war anyway?

Ben, York,

If Bush & Blair had only read the Letter sent to them before the war by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani ..none of this would have ever happened!!! Iraq, that is. Of course, the letter was not printed in any US paper, only British. I wish you reprint it now & advise all British & Americans to read it.
Ashamed & Concerned

C, San Antonio, Texas

hear hear - at last a bit of balance about Iraq. Whilst it's true that US mistakes after the war undoubtedly fuelled the turmoil inside Iraq, the people who are to blame for this are the terrorists hell bent turning the country into an Islamist state. Don't let the Blair-hating obssesives let the terrorists off the hook.

mark flanagan, London,

As apologia for Blair go, this really takes the biscuit. Minority of one again for Mr Hames.

Ed, London,

Tony Blair is assumed to be a bright fellow and was expected by us to temper George Bush's Gung Ho ways. However, he isn't quite still smart enough to understand that Islam is not only a religion, but a political and legal doctrine that forbids all others. Give freedom to muslims and the more violent elements will prevail, because they are islamically correct. How many fatwas are there against Osama bin Laden?

Christopher Hyde, Paris, France

The idea that not supporting the US militarily would necessarily mean joining the Euro is, frankly, laughable.

PJO, London, UK

It has now been revealed that Bush told Blair there were other ways to support the US than militarily.

The 45 minute claim was a treasonous lie.

Hame's comments about the Iraqi people being responsible for this war are below contempt.

J McD, SF, USA

"why shouldn’t he think that removing odious dictators is worthwhile? It does not appear that much of a crime to me."

Then you don't know anything about international law, do you? Regime change is illegal.

Before Bush and Blair's disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq, most Iraqis were leading blameless, safe lives - enjoying free education (considered the best in the region), being able to go out in the evening and know that they would return home safely - women could wear Western clothes and have jobs, and car bombs were unheard of.

Of course, Blair shares the blame for breaking up an entire Arab state, and not just any Arab state.

Rachel Mawhood, London, UK

Who are the people who the author says "portray Iraq as if it was a bellicose British prime minister who made the decision to invade and somehow dragged a slightly sceptical American President along with him"? I have never met them nor read them nor heard them nor seen them. Are they fiction like Saddam's WMD? What intelligence says these people exist? Where can I find them?

And as for "for six decades the essence of our foreign policy has been to play Robin to the American Batman", has the author never heard of Vietnam when the UK said "thanks but no thanks"? And where was Batman in Suez? At least the fairy story angle is correct on the whole saga.

S. Quinlivan, Brussels,

correction to my earlier post - it should have said "This does not detract from USA's strategists mistake in ignoring warnings from all over the world (including from senior UK politicians) of the serious dangers of not planning for the period of power vacuum. If they had listened to the warnings and made plans before the war, then we may have had a less fractured situation in post-war Iraq"

Max, Manchester, UK

To get the most objective view of the Blair years one will have to wait until about 2050. Any discussion of the subject at present disappears in a blaze of hate and hysteria.

Hugh, London,

It is now becoming obvious why countries in the mid-east are ruled by ruthless dictators. It would have been beneficial to UK interests if the Foreign Office could have foreseen what is now happening in Iraq and persuaded Blair not to have anything to do with the removal of Saddam, no matter how odious he was. The general public now have a better understanding of the tribal/ethnic/religious divides that criss-cross the entire region. Surely we and the Americans have enough foreign-affaires experts who could have guided their masters better, or were the pair of them determined not to listen? Isn't this the main indictment?

Ken Miller, Benfleet, England

My theory re. weapons of mass destruction: Saddam really believed he had them, or had the means of acquiring them at the ready. He supplied the money for them, but his generals et al. led him to believe they were available, but took the money instead and secretly stashed it away somwhere, and we all can guess where. It's a case of follow the money if ever there was one.

Also, it is inconceivable to me that Blair could have lied, in view of the mass protest of people against the war.

Ann Playfair, Woodstock, New York

Support the war or join the Euro? Very funny.

Tim, London,

Absolute rubbish. And a pack of half truths. The intelligence agencies were not completely sure about WMD, as has recently been revealed. But their doubts were suppressed. And Blair could have supported America without going to war, as Canada did.
A million people marched in London knowing that the war was not justified. But Blair will go to his grave denying it. But it still will dominate his legacy.

boblinnell, london,

I'll wager that Mr Blair may see another side of his neocon mentors when he departs from office and thereby outlives his usefulness. Not slow at finding scapegoats for the failed Iraq project, I don't doubt that they'll spit some venom in his direction. That US payback lecture tour may not be quite what he and we are expecting!

Charles, London, England

Excellent article, and pretty much reflects what I have been thinking for a while. I disagreed with the War, but at the same time I understand Mr Blair's position which at the time made it nigh on impossible for him not to co-operate with the USA. Also, it is correct to point out that the ensuing power vacuum in Iraq (post Saddam removal) has been exploited by factions with political self-interest as opposed to any regard for the Iraqi people. This does not detract from USA's strategists to ignore warnings from all over the world (including from senior UK politicians) of the serious dangers of not planning for the period of power vacuum.

Max, Manchester, UK

Time Hames writes as if Tony Blair had been unable to make up his own mind, when in fact he's been the leader of a sovereign state. Perhaps he would have done far better to have looked at this part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy. Instead he seems to have breached international law and emerged from his great adventure with George Bush as little more than a sycophant. Just what is so glorious in that legacy?

John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand

Mr. Hames is to be congratulated on a balanced and fair article. Would that this was the 'norm' in these days of soundbites and many members of the media trying to make the headlines rather than concentrating on performing as an intelligent reporter.
In my view , Mr. Simon Jenkins would regain his reputation if he were to demonstrate a great deal more balance in his recent articles .
Well done- Mr Hames!

michael moorhouse, Bazauges, France

You write "Every intelligence agency on the planet, including those serving governments that opposed the war, thought Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction." That is a lie, pure and simple. Bush and Blair raced to war precisely because so much evidence was stacking up, particularly in the hands of Hans Blix, that showed Saddam had NO such weapons. And your suggestion that had the UK not sent troops to Iraq it would have been forced to join the Euro is utterly preposterous, in law and in politics.

Mod, London,

Blair knew that there was no reconstruction strategy for post-war Irag. Powell's plan was ditched by Rumsfeld and Cheney.At that point he should have withdrawn support. For that he is culpable. certainly he is not alone, but Iraq is his legacy.

TMJ Black, Southampton,

This article uses false argument to downplay the massive failure of leadership displayed by Blair in relation to Iraq. Overall, I think Blair has been a good if not great prime minister, but it should not be overlooked that even an averagely briefed university student would have had a fair idea that removing the Iraqi leadership would create some sort of power void in the region, and that this would need to be filled somehow to prevent instability. The chaos that we are now witnessing was entirely predictable, was voiced by many commentators as a massive concern at the time, and promptly ignored by the decision makers. That is inexcusable.

Stephen Jones, Changde City, China

It's the big lie that sticks in the craw. You only have to talk to anyone connected with the forces for five minutes to know that our troops are seriously under-resourced for what they are being asked to do. No amount of wishful thinking about 'justifications' can excuse this shameful truth.

Ed, London,

History will characterise the Blair years as superficial; a time when style held sway over substance.
If his understanding of the likely consequences of invading Iraq had not been so superficial, he would have been far more circumspect, like France, Germany and Russia. The proof of this is that nobody believes that with hindsight he would make the same decision again.
The same superficiality marks domestic matters, such as law and order, prisons, health, education, transport etc. Ten years of eye-catching initiatives, but no real reform.
There is little public support either for Gordon Brown or the other party leaders, but the nation will gave a huge cheer when Blair leaves Downing Street for the last time - and that says it all.

Bill Rispin, Hessle,

The main points of this are patently rosy tinted hogwash and undeserving of any sane political debate.

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

Why should the passage of time make historians "more rounded about the Blair record?"

Chamberlain and Eden both did other things beside Munich and Suez, but even now who remembers? Each of them is remembered for one event only, and so will Tony be,

The guy should have remebered his Kipling

'And the end of the fight is a tombstone white
With the name of the late deceased.
And the epitaph drear "A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle the east".'

Michael W Stone, BA FBIS, Peterborough, UK

Maybe if Blair had done a few years (or even a few days) in the forces, he would have been less inclined to embark on foreign adventures of this nature, actually volunteering a war, instead of treating combat as the absolute last resort.

As it is, our troops out there are not even equipped adequately: unbelievable.

Blair deserves every word of criticism he gets, and much, much more besides.

David Jefferis, Brill, UK

Mr Blair is a creature of his time and was thus more or less bound to join the invasion of Iraq. We are in the age when the Americans and British still retain the arrogant presumption that they have a right to invade other people’s countries on an equally presumed basis that they know what is best for them. But as Iraq - and many previous experiences - has proved, this is wrong.
We do not have a democracy in this country; we have a regime which we have acquired over centuries, and which has been facilitated by our insular configuration. The Iraqis should have been left to work out their own salvation, even if it is much more difficult for them; having been pushed around by foreign powers over generations, and with the ongoing intermeddling of those powers. Whatever that produced is the appropriate result for their country, and it is a measure of the inadequacy of the leadership of our countries, not theirs, that this state of affairs has arisen.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Economic truths. Europe imports more oil from the Middle East than does the U.S.A. In fact if push ever came to shove the U.S could resource its Shale Oil reserves which are estimated as being larger than those of Saudi Arabia. Recent technological advancement for its extraction makes it a viable option. So why the war in Iraq? Its pure economics. If the Middle East lost out to a dominant military dictatorship then Europe would suffer badly. Lack of oil would halt the great Germany economy with an ease similar to flicking off a light switch. Europe's energy resources amount next to nothing. What with a power hungry China purchasing oil left, right and centre, Europe is becoming 2nd or 3rd in line and if it weren't for the deployment of U.S troops in Iraq the threat to loosing the Middle East oil industry is enormous. European markets are important to the U.S.A so for the moment its the U.S who is keeping the Western World economic markets stable.

Martin, Munich, Germany

Hames has a point about some of the anti-Blair element - wishing to get out of Iraq merely to get into Sudan instead is indeed crazy.

His main point, however, is idle. Whether or not Iraq should be the only thing Blair is rmembered for, it is a foregone conclusion that it will be.

Michael W Stone, BA FBIS, Peterborough, UK

This is a typical "colonial era" load of crap. Since getting rid of odious dictators is worthwhile, why is it only done (or not done) around the oilfields? Isn't Saudi Arabia one of the most odious dictatorships on the planet? Why has Mgabe not been "dealt with"? What about the slaughter house in Burma? Yes, let the truth be told - Blair did lie, and the frenzied efforts to cover it all up, keep documents locked away, and close the mouths of those who knew the truth prove it.

Ronald E. Watts, Nicosia, Cyprus

Mr Blair is to blame that we became involved in an islamic country. Islam is a religion of terror: fathers and sons kill daughters and wives. Suicide bombers blow up indiscriminately all those around them and believe they are going to paradise - what a load of supersitious twaddle. They do not integrate and they look down on all Europeans through their religion tinted glasses. Young moslems who were born in Europe look down on european women as "second hand". They do not want wives they want slaves. There is basically no love in islamic men they are brainwashed from birth.
Blair is responsible that we have so many of them in the country and all he does is to try and appease them.
Islam never had a year 2000 problem as they are all living in the middle ages. When will we have a leader that tells it how it is.

Fred, Dubai, Dubai

I don't buy the argument that if the UK did not follow the Americans into Iraq, it would have reversed over 60 years of foreign policy. First, recent books on the build up to the invasion noted that the Bush Administration were sympathetic to the political pressure that Tony Blair was under; they assured him that there would be no animosity should Blair had decided not to participate.

Second, the UK is the second largest participant in the War in Afganistan after the United States. It is unlikely the US would have turned its back on its Special Relationship with the UK when it still needed help in that conflict.

Ian, Bridgetown, Barbados

Ah, yes, we are all fallible and make mistakes. Of course, the Iraqis are to blame for incompetence. But we knew that already long ago. It's just that my standards of governance are utopian. I do not expect Prime Ministers to make mistakes of this magnitude. Perhaps he is just badly educated and it is not his fault. Perhaps he was unable to get the right advice. But if so that is surely a measure of the man himself. How we declare war should not be just the hunch of one man, relying on Royal Prerogative. But we really cannot go on saying that we are all human and that anything that happens is no one's fault. We employ prime ministers to make good decisions! To those of us who have spent many years in the Middle East, the situation looks pretty bad and may yet go from bad to worse. Yet we have volunteered (with friends!) to put it all right. I do not believe the history books are going to be kind to us in face of such a gathering storm.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Iraq continues to remain at the forefront of political debate and contention, even 4 years after initial Western involvement in the Middle Eastern region. The principal difficulty in truly understanding the international situation in Iraq is as a result of much fact being shrouded in mystery. This is the fundamental issue behind the then intelligence available, and more importantly, WMDs. The public will inevitably be kept guessing, but who is to say that the arguments that the country itself possessed nuclear, or other, capabilities are well reasoned and sound? Many believe them to be fallacious and misconceived – such arguments were used to retrospectively justify military intervention in the area. It is, however, true that the present situation has been aggravated by factors not attributed to Blair. The War between rival extremist factions has exacerbated the already present difficulties, the conflict effectively terminating any possibility of a future peace settlement.

Marcin Roth, London, UK

It is about his famous '45 minute' claim!

stanzler, New York, US