Blair & Iraq: continuity or betrayal?

In the analyses of Blair rage, something seems missing, namely the question: was Blair’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq a betrayal of New Labour or a continuation of it? I suspect the latter, in four senses.
First, Blair has long had a faith - the right word, I think - in the power of leadership, a belief that leaders with the balls to take courageous decisions can change society for the better: “big people do big things.” In this sense, his decision to go to war was similar to his decision to ditch clause IV - bold, adventurous moves which Blair took in the belief that destiny would vindicate him.
In this vein, why should we be surprised that Blair thought that top-down leadership could impose viable liberal democracy in Iraq? He thought it could impose improved health and education standards at home.
Secondly, Blair had a faith in expert knowledge. His confidence that Iraq had  WMD was similar to New Labour’s confidence that it could set a minimum wage at a level that reduced poverty without cutting jobs, or that targets could improve health and education. In all cases, there’s the idea that a central authority can gain certain knowledge about complicated realities.
Thirdly, there’s a belief that the job of government is to respond to a particular conception of globalization. Many of the defining features of his domestic agenda - most notably his three top priorities “education, education, education” - were an attempt to find an economic policy that would allow the UK to cope with globalization. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq was a response to the perception that there was  “a real and present danger” that Saddam was part of a globalized terrorist threat. In both cases, there’s an assumption that we live in new, “modern” times, and that the  policy response to this is knowable by men in power.
Fourthly, there’s a reluctance to think about trade-offs. Norm has rightly chastised some of the anti-war left for failing to see that there is a case on both sides of the argument.  But one could level the same accusation at Blair. He says (p229 of A Journey) that “there is no moral judgement that can or should be based on maths.” But the case for war is fundamentally a mathematical one: do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Again, this is a continuation of Blair’s thinking in other areas. This consisted in large part of the denial of trade-offs - most notably, between equality and efficiency. From such a perspective, it’s a small step to thinking that there are simple, right answers to problems.
I say all this not to take a view on the war. I do so merely to suggest that Blair’s support for it was not such a departure from New Labour’s underlying principles. In this sense, maybe John has a point - there is an element of self-hatred in some people’s Blair rage.
* I can’t be bothered to read A Journey; I‘m relying on Chris‘s twitter version. I read New Britain: My Vision of a Young Country. Haven’t I suffered enough?

Comments

[Aaron Sampler]

Chris,
I feel forced to reply. Forget Labour/new or otherwise. Bush was going to invade Irag no matter what, WMD/links to Al Queada etc, all the bs about regime came after. What they needed was one big player to come on board, 'the coalation of the willing'. Blair can believe whatever wants, but with Aus and a few other minor countries helped to wank out their neo-con dreams. This is why like Palin they make the money, weak men/feeble men acting tough. Blair is a small man, he went with the Cheney(never fought in war, like Bush) but tough (typical Republican, who are the real girlie men!!!), doctrine. Blair is neo-cons bitch, nothing more nothing less.

[Steve]

Your point about top-down leadership is only partially right - top-down was targets, but other pressures focissed on imporvement were also introduce - patient choice being pressure from below, and competition being pressure from other units of the NHS (and some private sector providers). Blair believed that only through all of these reforms would the NHS in particular (education is another story) be improved and modernised.

[Paul Sagar]

If there's a flaw in your analysis, it may be in equating New Labour with Blair.

But then, that equation may be quite justified in a lot of ways.

[cjcjc]

"But the case for war is fundamentally a mathematical one: do the benefits outweigh the costs?"

Is it though?

I mean, what would such a calculation actually look like?
What units would be used?

[BenP]

"But the case for war is fundamentally a mathematical one: do the benefits outweigh the costs?"

A down payment of ‘blood and treasure’ on the one side and effective control over the second largest proven reserves in the world and leverage over Saudi Arabia and Iran. What’s not to like?

[Chris Brooke]

I am proud that my Twitter version of "A Journey" has the official imprimatur of Stumbling & Mumbling. Many thanks!

[ukliberty]

"Secondly, Blair had a faith in expert knowledge. ... In all cases, there’s the idea that a central authority can gain certain knowledge about complicated realities."

Hang on - I thought Blair went against the expert view (no WMD in Iraq, Saddam wasn't a threat).

Unless you're saying Blair thought he was the expert (in which case, Dunning-Kruger).

[ukliberty]

"I mean, what would such a calculation actually look like?
What units would be used?"

pounds sterling and pints (blood)

[alpha male]

Very nice and impressive article you have posted. Its very helpful, i have read and bookmark this site and will recommend it to more other peoples.

[Niklas Smith]

Thank you for this perceptive post. I agree with your criticism of the hubris of "big people".

The uneasy alliance between expanding choice (seen in the NHS at least under New Labour) and ever tighter central control confuses me. Perhaps the soul of New Labour is in Gordon Brown's refusal to make more choice-based reforms after Blair stood down, rather than in Blair's slightly schizophrenic trust in both "little" people's choices and "big" people's targets? (Thanks to Steve and Paul Sagar for bringing this up.)

[Guano]

I think you're wrong about expert knowledge. The experts did not say that Iraq's WMD were an established fact. It was Blair who said that, and he browbeat the experts into stripping out caveats from their judgements so as to support his assertion. The main driver was a belief in modernisation, which meant not being anti-American, and this led to the facts being fitted around the policy.

This is par for the course for New Labour. Few experts can see the point of Academy schools, for example, and what the so-called sponsors can constribute to secondary education in challenging environments. The driver is a belief that LEAs are old fashioned, Labour has to get over its hang-ups about the private sector etc etc. The experts have been browbeaten, the results of public consultations fiddled (and some of the GCSE results are shockingly poor!)