Bush Derangement Syndrome

Tony Blair's attitude towards American foreign policy after 9/11 seems to have caused Bush Derangement Syndrome to mutate into an anti-Blair strain.

On Tuesday, I identified the anti-Bush flavour of the Conservative Party leader's foreign policy speech.

Dhimmi Carter, this week, told the BBC ,

I have been really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government's policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have been originated in Washington....

...No matter what kind of radical or ill-advised policy was proposed from the White House, it seems to me that almost automatically the government of Great Britain would adopt the same policy without exerting its influence.

Also this week, in the Independent, Clare Short - she of the I will/might/won't/maybe/won't/will/won't resign over Iraq fame - wrote,

..I have reached a stage where I am profoundly ashamed of the Government. Blair's craven support for the extremism of US neoconservative foreign policy has exacerbated the danger of terrorism and the instability and suffering of the Middle East.

Today, even the Daily Telegraph submitted to the plague. In a leader criticising Short, the DT opined that Blair's

unquestioning adherence to George Bush's foreign policy has not always been in the best interests of this country.

One striking thing this wide range of opinions have in common is that they all state a view but offer no argument to back it up, rather, we are meant to take it as a given that Tony Blair is an unthinking ally of George Bush. Evidence please.

9/11 was an attack not just on America but on all the western democracies. As such it required a unified response by the West. Blair was one of a only a few western leaders to grasp this, as he seems to have grasped that, as the most powerful nation in the free world and as the immediate target of the terrorist atrocities of that day, it was natural that America should play the leading role.

Blair seems to have realised immediately it was in the UK's policy interests to support Operation Enduring Freedom because specifically striking back at the perpetrators of 9/11 and, more generally, weakening the capacity of terrorists to strike at the west, was in the UK's policy interest. It would make the UK a safer (but, of course, not entirely safe) place.

Blair could have followed many other European governments and declined to take part in the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, that is what the left (and some on right) really mean when they criticise Blair for his supposed subservience to President Bush. After examining in some detail the case for and against invasion, many of us on the right who are Blair's bitter opponents on domestic policy, were totally convinced by the evidence, particularly of Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction programme, and concluded that Blair was making the right policy decision, a decision in the UK's national interest. This blog has noted previously the influence Blair exercised over Bush by persuading him to go the UN route, mainly so he could drag a recalcitrant Labour Party with him by appealing to their obsessive internationalism and infatuation with the UN (there is a syndrome surely worthy of psychiatric attention).

It is the left which, in failing to support steps necessary to defend the security of the UK, has acted against the policy interests of this country through their subservience to a vague internationalism. They should not be allowed to transfer their failings to other politicians who have made the defence of the realm a priority and acted accordingly. Domestically, Tony Blair may arguably have been the most incompetent and dishonest prime minister in British history but, in foreign policy, his record has been one of remarkable success. That is why the left hate him as much as they seem to hate themselves and their country.