Right in Principle

Written by

in

Daniel Finkelstein argues that deposing Saddam was the right decision, despite the outcome:

You cannot….judge the quality of a decision by its outcome.

The outcome of any political decision is uncertain. You use your best estimate of the probabilities of different results and make a choice. Even if you have calculated the probabilities correctly and made a sensible choice, the outcome might still be a poor one. Only an analysis of the results of repeated decisions can provide a proper insight into whether your choice was a good one. […]

The critics believe that Mr Blair should have defied the request from our closest ally and chosen to stand aside and do nothing about Saddam.

They reach this point with two sleights of hand that make the decision to go to war seem impossibly stupid. The first is to criticise the known outcome of the course taken without reference to the unknown outcome of the course not taken. Not prosecuting the war would have meant leaving Saddam in power, followed in due course by his mad, murderous sons. If you ignore the possible result of allowing this then, of course, the war becomes difficult to explain.

The second thing the critics do is to consider the Iraq war as an isolated decision, rather than one in a long series. It can’t be looked at like that.

Even if you consider the history of policy towards Saddam alone, the decision to remove him is simply one among many. But the Iraq invasion also has to be seen as one decision among many in the War on Terror, in the recent history of liberal interventionism and in the long course of the special relationship.

On the whole, I believe that robust partnership with the United States, and a strong military approach to dangerous, aggressive dictators with nuclear ambitions is a better foreign policy than the alternatives. And on the whole, I think that believing intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction is a more sensible thing to do than ignoring them.

That’s why I supported the war in Iraq. And why I still believe that decision was the right one.

Comments

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    His premise – that a decision that favoured the odds might still turn out badly – is true enough. But Blair’s decision seems to me to have had nothing to do with favouring the odds – a shallow, ignorant, none-too-bright PM found another “eye-catching initiative with which I can be personally associated”, lied a bit, and tally-ho, we’re at war. Loathsome wee twat.

  2. eric Avatar

    Yes, that’s right. Blair saw the anti-war march and thought “Fantastic, this is a eye-catching initiative with which I can be personally associated”. Idiot.
    Tony Blair has deliberately poisoned his premiership with his principled stand on Iraq, a less principled politician would have let America enforce 1441 on their own and avoided the difficulties of Iraq. It is to his credit that he did not.

  3. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Principled stand on Iraq: come now, the whole thing was sold to the American people by encouraging the ridiculous belief that Iraq was behind 9/11.

  4. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    a vast arsenal of WMD. I don’t know if the last notion was a lie or a mistake. It was certainly believed by any number of leaders, including Sadam himself, it seems.
    Sadam was a threat then the way that the current nutcases in NK and Iran will be in the near future. There are no simple answers to this. I for one believe that the British took a difficult but principled stand.

  5. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    The British, and their elected representatives, were nor consulted. NK and Iran may be real threats to American and British interests: Iraq was a synthetic one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *