Leading article: Blair's moral failure

There is a long tradition in this country of scepticism about moralising politicians. It is a tradition to which this newspaper - alone among quality Sundays - gave voice in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. It is worth recalling the reasons for our opposition, and the spirit in which they were presented. We did not sneer at Tony Blair's moral language. In many ways it was refreshing, and it inspired idealism and hope about the purposes of British foreign policy in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.

What Mr Blair seemed to fail to understand, then and now, was that, while it could be morally right, at one level, to depose a wicked tyrant who was a minor threat to regional stability, its rightness overall depended on the likely consequences.

"Stop the rush to war. Think of the consequences. Listen to reason." That was the headline on our front page leading article on 26 January 2003. To be honest, we under-estimated the dangers of terrorism, disorder, sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq itself. We worried about a humanitarian catastrophe and regional instability, but we had little premonition of the "wretched bloodshed" into which, as the Prime Minister himself admitted last week, Iraq would sink.

Our failure of foresight was excusable, given that we opposed the war - and especially as we did so partly because its unforeseen consequences were likely to be negative. What is most shocking, in hindsight, is that Mr Blair and George Bush seemed to have even less an idea of the consequences than we did, or than the millions who protested against their decision.

Last week Mr Blair in effect admitted failure. Presented as a reduction in troop numbers in Basra as conditions improved, the truth is that his announcement constituted a slowing down of the pull-out because conditions have improved so little. In the end, though, the troops have to come home because, as General Sir Richard Dannatt said four months ago, there is little positive that they can do, while their very presence "exacerbates the security situation". It is a dispiriting mission for the soldiers there, who are proud of the good work they have done but dismayed by the fact that life is now worse for most Iraqis than when they began. In such a context, the least the Government could do is to ensure that service men and women have the resources and welfare support that they need. Yet the evidence has been persistent since the start of Afghan operations at the end of 2001 that political and bureaucratic responses to requests from the field have been too slow.

However, the Government also took a more hopeful step last week. The deployment of additional British troops to Afghanistan is welcome, if late. Although the two military actions are different - that in Afghanistan is worthwhile, winnable and justified, while that in Iraq is not - Mr Blair's failing in both is the same.

As we approach the time for an assessment of Mr Blair's legacy, it is beginning to look as if the Prime Minister will be remembered for his failure to plan to follow through his "moral" decisions. In Iraq, if he and Mr Bush had planned for the peace they might never have gone ahead; in Afghanistan the situation would not have got to the present pass before the troops began to arrive to deliver on the promises made to the Afghan people. Now it will fall to their successors to redeem those promises.

Interesting? Click here to explore further