Tony Blair kind of apologized for the Iraq war, but many Brits still hate him

 

Former British prime minister Tony Blair listens to a question during an appearance at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York on Oct. 6, 2015.

There is perhaps no Western leader as deeply tarnished by the Iraq war and its failures as Tony Blair, under whose leadership Britain became a prominent player in the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Blair, once a media darling for his reinvention of the British left, was soon dubbed George W. Bush's "poodle" for his apparent subservience to the U.S. president. The war has haunted him ever since.
This weekend, Blair sought to make some amends. Speaking to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that aired Sunday, Blair said there were “elements of truth” to the argument that the Iraq war had led to the rise of the Islamic State militant group. He, however, added some considerable caveats.
“Of course you can’t say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015,” he told Zakaria, referring to the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. “But it’s important also to realize, one, that the Arab Spring, which began in 2011, would have also have had its impact on Iraq today and, two, ISIS actually came to prominence from a base in Syria and not in Iraq.” The Islamic State, which has seized large swaths of Iraq and Syria, is also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh.
Blair went on to say that he found it "hard to apologize" for forcing Hussein from office, even though it turned out that the Iraqi leader did not have weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq. “I think, even from today — in 2015 — it’s better that he’s not there than he is there," Blair said.
As cautious an apology as it was, Blair did seem to be breaking with previous comments. In a lengthy blog post published last year, he said, "It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis."
Few have been receptive to Blair's newfound feeling of responsibility, however.
Among the British media, often the former prime minister's harshest critics, the response was almost uniformly negative. Writing in the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh said Blair had  “rejected any blame for the greatest geopolitical catastrophe this century.” In the Daily Mail, Michael Burleigh dubbed Blair's comments a "performance" that had been "dressed up as a confessional." The Guardian's Richard Norton-Taylor wrote that it was "scarcely surprising" that Blair would give a "half-hearted apology for the way he dragged Britain into a disastrous invasion of Iraq" — but that it was surprising that he had not done it sooner or made the apology to a British outlet.
The left-wing Mirror tabloid responded with fury to Blair's remarks, dubbing his apology "weasel words" that "will bring no comfort to families whose loved ones never came home." And, needless to say, the response on social media was just as angry, if far more profane. Here's one relatively tame example:

For many, the anger seems to stem from the fact that Blair's apology contained so many caveats that it wasn't really that different from what he has said before. Others noted that Blair has been calling for more military action in Syria and Iraq, suggesting that he hasn't learned lessons from the invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps the most damning criticism of the apology, however, is its timing. Britain's Parliament is preparing to release a report that examines the country's involvement in the Iraq war. The report was due to be released in 2011 but has been repeatedly delayed. Many suspect it will be critical of Blair's decision-making process in the days leading up to the war (earlier this month, a leaked memo appeared to show that he was ready to authorize an Iraq invasion in 2002).
Since leaving office, Blair has attempted to carve a new space for himself as a global statesman. However, he has faced criticism not just for his legacy in Iraq, but also the confusing finances of his lucrative international work. When he received the Global Legacy Award from Save the Children last year, more than 124,000 people signed a petition asking for the award to be revoked, and there were signs of internal discord at the charity. He resigned as Middle East peace envoy earlier this year after a controversial tenure that appeared to produce little progress in the region. Jeremy Corbyn, the man who leads Blair's former party, has repeatedly emphasized how different he is from Blair and even suggested that the former prime minister could face trial for the Iraq war.
For Blair's supporters and sympathizers — a relatively small crowd at this point — the situation is galling, with his mistakes exaggerated and his (quite considerable) successes forgotten. Writing in the Independent, John Rentoul argued that Blair had, in fact, adequately apologized for the failures of the Iraq invasion already. "It was a reasonable decision, supported by the [House of] Commons, on the basis of the evidence at the time," Rentoul argued. In a statement, Blair's office also said that he had "always" apologized for mistakes made in the war and that he did not say that the war itself had created the Islamic State.
For Americans, the anger shown toward Blair may seem surprising. Even Bush, the man who apparently owned the "poodle," isn't treated with such widespread hostility for his role in the Iraq war, and the lucrative international work of former U.S. presidents such as Bill Clinton is largely tolerated. But much of the world seems unwilling to let Blair off the hook.
“I don’t think people will ever get over Iraq,” David Blunkett, a Blair supporter and a former government minister, told the Guardian last year. "It is not that they say Tony made a mistake. They hate him for it."