Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair has acknowledged in a television interview that the 2003 invasion of Iraq contributed to the rise of the horror that calls itself the Islamic State. It may seem obvious, though, as he also pointed out, that other things have happened in the interim - notably the brief "Arab Spring" four or five years ago. The popular uprisings that spread from Tunisia, replacing secular military dictators with elected Islamic governments, stopped at Syria. The regime of Bashar al-Assad was prepared to bomb its own cities rather than give up power. Meanwhile, in Egypt the elected government was removed and military rule restored with the support of some elements of the previous democratic uprising.
If the West has learned anything since 2003, it is that the politics of the Islamic world are a good deal more complicated than it supposed when it decided to remove Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein. He and Assad were cut from the same cloth; both products of the Ba'ath movement that replaced the monarchies installed in their adjoining states at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. If Saddam was still in power, he too would probably be at war with Isis today.
Mr Blair remains sure that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. So does Jeb Bush, brother of the United States President who ordered the invasion, who is now running for presidential candidacy himself. Fiercely defending his brother's decision in a debate with others seeking the Republican nomination, Mr Bush insisted America was "safer" as a result. "Well, I don't feel safer," replied his highest polling rival, Donald Trump.
Sometimes historical mistakes are so monumental it is pointless to wonder what might have been. George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was the pivotal event of the early 21st century, even more than September 11, 2001, for which it was retaliation in many American minds. A grand new tower now stands on the site of the World Trade Centre, but war and terror prevail in Iraq and much of the Middle East. Sadly, it remains impossible to see a resolution.
The President's closest foreign ally, Mr Blair, has suffered more than Mr Bush did. Britain never really believed the case for invasion, nor probably did Mr Blair. He was acting in line with longstanding British foreign policy that considers it vital to ensure the US is not alone, especially if the rest of Europe is not onside. Mr Blair paid a high price for his solidarity. But for Iraq, he would probably be regarded now as one of Britain's great Prime Ministers. He modernised the Labour Party, made it electable and gave Britain 10 years of youthful, vigorous government and sustained prosperity. But Iraq brought him down and discredited his legacy in the eyes of Labour supporters. The consequences are still evident in the party's drift to the left today.
