Credit Where Due?

I really hate arguments of this form, but it seems to me that you need to give Tony Blair credit for at least having the courage of his convictions in taking on this thankless and doomed to fail task as special envoy to the Middle East. At the moment, his record is largely composed of good things, plus a giant Iraq-shaped stain. To basically double-down on the Mideast-related aspects of his legacy is gutsy.

Gutsy, but also kind of dumb. Not totally unlike risking his legacy on Iraq in the first place.

Comments

Gutsy, but also kind of dumb.

Not really.

The expectations are so low because everyone, including you, says he has no chance of success.

So on the contrary, he (or anyone else in that position) basically has nothing to lose, and should he actually accomplish something - however remote - he'll be hailed as a visionary peacemaker.

But no one is going to blame him for not being able to turn around that mess.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 27, 2007 9:06 PM

I mean, it's definitely a hail mary for Blair, but his foreign policy legacy is not going to be any worse than it already is because of his new job.

From that standpoint, there is only upside, even though success (or even "success") is unlikely.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 27, 2007 9:10 PM

I wonder if most Brits would count his record as composed of "mostly good things". Admittedly, most of the brits that I hear from very much are significantly to Blair's left (as well they ought to be!) but most of them are pretty down on the guy. I wonder if you would be so keen on him if you had a more first-hand view.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | June 27, 2007 9:20 PM

Is he getting this gig because there isn't room on the Carlyle Group's board? Is anyone besides Israel in the Middle East even gonna trust Blair? That would seem to me why he'll fail. He doesn't have the trust of important parties in that region.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 27, 2007 9:27 PM

Blair will get a rather more intensive education in American politics than he has currently enjoyed.

Posted by otto | June 27, 2007 9:30 PM

"At the moment, his record is largely composed of good things, plus a giant Iraq-shaped stain."

Well, yes and no. I mean, some of the privatizations have gone really badly, notably rail, right?

As otto points out, it's going to be strange having basically no power other than being on good terms with the President, who doesn't really seem inclined to do anything and of course wouldn't be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 27, 2007 10:05 PM

Yeah, I don't see the double or nothing. Are there really people who expect him to succeed?

My impression is that he's doing it because this was the most interesting option available and understandably he's trying to find the closest thing that can provide the high and excitement of being a prime minister.

PS. I watched various tidbits of him in recent days. He must be one of the most- if not the most- impressive speakers I ve ever witnessed. He was also a great public servant. As for the Iraq mistake, he gets more of a pass with me, because for an English prime minister, the decision of going to war with Iraq is less important of whether he should follow America or stay in a sort of wilderness between the US and Europe.

OTOH, he does seem to genuinely believe the cause of war and if indeed he does -and it's not a willful self-blindness to get by- it's a mark of a serious intellectual flaw.

All in all, as the Brits say: "But for Iraq, he's one of the best prime ministers the island has had".

Posted by Nick Kaufman | June 27, 2007 10:18 PM

He is also known for his enthusiastic support for the bombing of Lebanon last year. That was, if you remember, the catalyst for his party insisting that he give a firm date for departing and that he depart within 12 months.

I don't see why taking this role reflects any credit on Blair and his enormous ego. The region could use someone who is an unbiased honest broker. Blair is emphatically neither of these.

Posted by nyx | June 27, 2007 11:17 PM

the fact that Blair sat on his hands during last summer's War means he has cred with Ohlmert and Bush, and hopes/needs to make good on his exhortations to Labor that the road to Jerusalem lasy through Baghdad. if only to diminish that "stain"

maybe General Dayton can give him some pointers, show him the right people, etc...?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 27, 2007 11:24 PM

Blair didn't just sit on his hands last year. He was a loud supporter. That caused a revolt in Labour party ranks who demanded he provide a resignation timetable.
As for cred with Bush (and Olmert) that was his one of his implicit arguments for the invasion of Iraq. He failed to turn that leverage (or the leverage of possibly pulling them out) into any tangible result.

Posted by nyx | June 27, 2007 11:35 PM

That caused a revolt in Labour party ranks who demanded he provide a resignation timetable.

The calls for resignation timetable within the Labour party predate the the Hezbollah/Lebanon war.

May 7, 2006:
Rebel MPs demand Blair timetable (Politics.co.uk)

May 8, 2006:
Blair again refuses to set timetable for retirement (USA Today/AP)

And this was the reason (from the second article):

Prime Minister Tony Blair ruled out setting a timetable for leaving office despite his party's disastrous local election results, saying Monday he still has a mandate from voters who awarded him a third term last year.

Blair defied critics in his own party who are demanding he offer a systematic plan to hand over power to the next Labour leader — even as he repeated promises to step down before the next election.

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel did not start until two months after Blair's own party members were calling for his resignation.

July 12, 2006
Hezbollah capture marks new escalation (BBC)

It's true that Blair didn't set a timetable until about a month after the conflict ended, but the calls for the resignation timetable started as a result of a poor electoral showing.

Until MY and the Atlantic fix his blog to allow links... you can just drop those headlines into google or yahoo to confirm the dates if you wish.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 28, 2007 12:08 AM

SoCalJustice
There were two revolts. One after the local elections and another linked to Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon. The revolt following Lebanon was where Blair was forced to say he would go within 12 months.
The point is that Blair is seen, even within Britain (let alone the Arab world) as Bush's poodle on Mideast foreign policy (not just Iraq). That makes him unsuitable for this role.

Blair hit by Lebanon backlash as minister admits ceasefire 'mistake'
Independent 14 September 2006

"A Foreign Office minister has conceded that Tony Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire during 34 days of slaughter in Lebanon may have been a mistake.

The admission by Kim Howells, minister for the Middle East, reflects the growing worries of senior figures in government that Mr Blair's defence of US foreign policy at every turn is damaging his administration at home and abroad.

Mr Howells also conceded that the decision to oppose - with the US - the international demand for an immediate ceasefire was not properly explained to the British public.

Mr Blair's isolated stance is seen as a major reason for the revolt that forced him to announce last week that he would be standing down within 12 months."

Posted by NYT | June 28, 2007 1:49 AM

Well, yes and no. I mean, some of the privatizations have gone really badly, notably rail, right?

True, but remember that Major actually privatised the railways. Blair was in charge when the incompetent network operating company, Railtrack, collapsed and decided to basically sort of renationalise the network (not the train companies). This caused vast amounts of pain to Railtrack shareholders, but most of the British public thought (justifiably) that it served them right.

Yes, rail privatisation went badly; but most people don't blame Blair for that. The main issues (ex Iraq) most Brits have with Blair are, moving from left to right: civil liberties (28 day hold-without-trial, surveillance); loans-for-honours; a supposed over-reliance on media management; increased "stealth" taxes, especially on pension schemes; too lax on immigration.

I agree, also, with SoCal. No one is going to think much worse of Blair because he tries and fails to bring peace to the Levant. Everyone expects he's going to fail anyway.

Posted by ajay | June 28, 2007 4:53 AM

"At the moment, his record is largely composed of good things"

Actually, if you care at all about the kind of civil liberties defended over here by the ACLU, Blair has been pretty much a complete nightmare, nor did his government's behavior in this regard start with 9/11.

Posted by Patrick Nielsen Hayden | June 28, 2007 6:51 AM

"At the moment, his record is largely composed of good things, plus a giant Iraq-shaped stain. "

From abroad it may look like that, but not from inside Britain. In addition to the things Ajay listed: botched constitutional reform, backtracking on the already gutless freedom of information act, sabotaging European labour protections, reappointing disgraced cabinet ministers, shambolic prisons policy, the ridiculous London Underground PPP and much more.
There is quite a lot on the plus side domestically - devolution, minimum wage, Good Friday agreement etc, but almost all of was achieved in his first two years as PM. Since then it's been pretty much one long downward slide.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | June 28, 2007 7:43 AM

"All in all, as the Brits say: "But for Iraq, he's one of the best prime ministers the island has had"."

I've heard very few people here in the UK say that or anything like it. Blair is not regarded as having been a good PM.

Most of his 'successes' were down to other people (ie brown & the 92 major government can between take the credit for the economy).

A common british view of blair is that he is a rather shallow,facile individual whose self righteousness
makes him arrogant and fundamentally dishonest("i'm right and so can i say or do anything i want because the end justify the means"). He often mistook words for actions and spin for truth.

His approval ratings went below 50% within 2.5 years of his 1st term and with the exception of a 9/11 boost stayed there for the rest of his term. If the tories hadn't been in such a shambles in the first few years of his government (and without 9/11) blair would have been unlikely to have been more than a one term PM.(Apart from 1 burst in 2005 he's been below 40% since 2003)

Both as politican and a man Brown is easily the more impressive and honest individual.

Posted by kb | June 28, 2007 1:07 PM