RECENT POSTS
- Peggy Noonan's Patriotic Grace
October 13, 2008 - Alaska Investigation
October 8, 2008 - Rough Presidential Politics
October 7, 2008 - Fight Night
October 3, 2008 - The Bailout: Big Brother Knows Best
September 28, 2008 - Recovery or Bailout?
September 26, 2008 - 1,000 Episodes
September 21, 2008 - Palin & Clinton, Together at Last
September 16, 2008
E-mail a friendYOUNG VOICES
Good Bye, Old Friend
As an avid and unwavering friend to George W. Bush, it just made sense that soon to be former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered support to the new president after 9/11. And as Michael Gerson explained in a recent Washington Post article, Blair was not the blind, complacent fool that some would have you believe. Instead, he was, and is, a principled man and prime minister whose logic for supporting the War on Terror is solid and "unshaken."
9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack, and it won't be the last. Since the events of September 11, 2001, Spain and London, to name only two of the most publicized, experienced devastating attacks. The argument that both Bush and Blair have only partially succeeded in spreading is that if we do not go to the terrorists, they will come to us. But that is only one of the reasons Blair signed on to the War on Terror, and the other, less popular, associated armed conflicts.
The reasoning Blair gives for his continuing allegiance to what is derisively called "the Bush Doctrine" is that reckless, failing nations become havens for crime and terrorism. To overcome the resulting instability, and to protect their own interests, developed nations must intervene by establishing free markets, finding cures for diseases, and fighting international issues like global climate change. As Blair sees it, this continuing battle will help bring justice and (eventually) peace to countries and peoples suffering at the hands of careless dictators and merciless terrorists.
As we have all seen, creating peace, especially in the Middle East, has proven to be more difficult than the straightforward theory espoused by Blair. However, as Blair himself explains, there are two factors at play outside of his and George W. Bush's immediate control. First, Al-Qaeda has proven to be a tireless enemy who continues to threaten the security of all nations by funding and organizing campaigns of destruction. Second, Iran is contributing to the chaos of an already chaotic region in an attempt to distract the United Kingdom, the United States, and the other countries in the Middle East from the threat that Iran poses to the international community. Combined, it has been difficult to make marked progress in that chapter of the War on Terror.
But does that mean that we should pack up and leave the Middle East? According to Blair, "The alternative in the end, comes down to a combination of either hope that it [terrorism] doesn't come after us, which after 9/11 isn't very sensible, or alternatively in certain parts of Europe, leave that up to the Americans."
Despite his numerous accomplishments domestically, such as an improved education system, improved health care, and low unemployment, Blair will not likely be placed in the ranks of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher as one of the best prime ministers in the history of the UK. And yet, his compassionate and truly liberal stance toward spreading liberty and freedom should not be forgotten. A champion of peace in Northern Ireland, a persuasive diplomat to halt the genocide in the Balkans, and an ally to innocent people around the world in the War on Terror, Mr. Blair leaves a big pair of shoes to be filled by his successor. Here's hoping they fit.