Yeah, quite delightful, really ... considering that it's always Alastair slightly mocking Rory all the time. Just shows that Rory can hold his own and was being amiable most times.
Campbell knows he's still on very shaky ground trying to justify this and is trying to convince no one but himself and is still far too bombastic. He's rattled because he knows he was and still is clearly wrong. Respect to Rory who is much more nuanced, thoughtful, and informed.
First time I have heard Rory swear. I do respect Alastair and agree with him on many issues. But the Iraq war was a black mark against Blair and the whole New Labour project and undermined the good work done on the economy reducing poverty etc. The worst thing it has done is that people no longer believe intelligence from our intelligence agencies even when they got it spot like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I do accept though that the United States was going to invade anyway and that the neo cons led by Cheney had already convinced Bush that invasion was necessary so containment was off the table. Yes the UK could have sat it out but it probably wouldn't have made much difference to what the neo cons wanted to do they wanted war.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Not just survived but thrived, George Walker Bush told Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair that he could stay out of it if it would harm his position.
Excellent as always. My one overall gripe is Alastair is too bombastic and Rory too well mannered. What is good with this one is Rory standing his ground. Whether I agree or not, more of this please.
The thing that gets me worked up about this is Alastair Campbell's ignorance about Middle East dynamics. Even as Rory Stewart tries to explain it to him. There is zero take-up on this point.
Putting aside the morality, and the enormous human cost, this was a blunder of the highest order, purely from a geopolitical perspective. For Campbell to suggest that Blair was committed to the war for strategic reasons just confirms my belief that Blair was clueless on the actual subject matter of almost everything he got involved in. Great political operator, but awful in terms of deciding policy.
But reading the comments most people who listen to this podcast, which was probably devised for THIS episode alone, are in their own media bubble and think its jolly good stuff.
Iraq is not exactly against the West, although for religious reasons very much in Iran's sphere, and is not starting wars left and right. A base against islamism too.
That was fascinating. Rory made a superb interlocutor. Polite, erudite, brushed aside the occasional straw man, and returned to the central point each time there was a derailment, and confronted Alistair head on with the hard truths. I wish more political interviews could be like this, but it's probably the specific format of this channel and the relationship between the two of them which made it possible.
I admire Alistair for facing scrutiny on something so obviously disastrous. Rory said he was wrong and has changed his mind, I wonder if A will come to see all the pain and suffering caused?
@@johnnotrealname8168 Being a cheerleader for one of Britain's WORST and MOST DESASTROUS foreign policy adventures should deserve some punishment. Indicted? Only if Blair is the first in line! I am not sure if the enormous human cost affects or in any shape creates concern or unease. If the answer is "no", fine be that way but don't scream your country is overrun with refugees from Middle East when UK was at the forefront of destabilizing those nations. Iraq, you break it you buy it!
In the end tony Blair was utterly shafted, used and then discarded by dick Cheney and the neo con gang for. Cheney really set him up. And then betrayed him.
Cheney really pushed for war and was pissed off when Bush snr, pulled out. Never forgave him and Bush Sr called Cheney and rumsfeld a couple of iron asses. Bush Sr was a moderate. Cheney was michiavellian figure who pushed Bush Jr to go to war after 9/11
Cheney never forgave Bush senior for pulling out of Iraq during gulf war one. Cheney was furious with Bush Sr. And because Bush was a moderate, Cheney did not trust him. He hates trump. Cannot stand him.
@@markdaly1648 This is not true actually. For starters George Herbert Walker Bush made a huge mistake in calling for an armed uprising and then proceeding to abandon the Kurds while death squads mowed them down (Some of that moderate I see.). Secondly George Walker Bush was in charge of Foreign Policy not his Vice-President. Again an absurd canard.
This is an incredible episode, well worth any money. I'm glad they had the time and platform to clamly go through the evidence and focus on not only facts but the root cause analysis with human factors. Rory does a masterpiece in diligently examining every piece of evidence and asking questions. He's also proposing ways the system could be improved and gives plenty of wise, detailed, and situational feedback. I wish all facts were examined to this level of intellectual scrutiny, maybe we wouldn't go around the world killing so many people in pointless wars.
Please can you have more of these debates where you each take an opposing view on a subject, becomes very boring when you agree with each other all the time, it’s refreshing for the listener to hear this kind of respectful debate
Campbell defends Blair’s insight when it turned out he was completely blind and had no insight whatsoever and Campbell is still blind to the actual reality.
I needed to hear this, I'd always been anti war thanks to Benn's speech but finally a lot of the unsaid other side today makes me understand it a lot more.
A lot more...such as what? You are allowing Campbell to befuddle you with colourful details which don't begin to paint over the vast cracks in the appalling canvas of this period of British life.
Fantastic and nuanced discussion. I'm hoping to hear two questions answered, at the time (i.e. without hindsight) what decisions did Alastair disagree with and secondly if he knew then what we know now how does he think things would have been handled differently?
I like how Alistair is so willing to absolve people he worked with of the responsibility of the death of a million people. Even compared to Brexshit, the adventurism he supported is the biggest foreign policy mistake we have made in the modern era. The fact that he can't see it was a mistake is just dumbfounding. In a just world he'd probably be in jail
There are only two alternative views reasonably open. The first is that the decision to invade Iraq was criminal because it was made without any justification at all and was simply a war crime carried out by Blair and the relevant members of the executive. That view is based on a conclusion that Blair and his executive lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an invasion that was carried out for a quite different reason namely that the UK and its allies wanted a regime change because it suited them. Part of that process involved manipulating the intelligence services to produce a case justifying a decision to go to war. This is what occurred in the United States where the intelligence apparatus was politicized and produced the "evidence" Bush required to justify the invasion. The second view is that the invasion decision was simply the result of a very high level of incompetence and negligence on the part of Blair and his advisors. This view is based on the conclusion that the intelligence services were so utterly incompetent that Blair should be excused for his conduct. It is the view that Rory prefers to subscribe to even though he seems to find it hard to believe. The nonsense from Campbell about the Iraqi threat is about as desperate as it gets. There was no evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the UK at the time or later. The argument (without evidence) never went beyond pointing out that Saddam was a nasty dictator and imagining a threat to the UK that might have emerged eventually if various improbable scenarios occurred. The nonsense about WMD and UN inspectors is typical obfuscation by Campbell and was utterly debunked by the inspectors themselves before the decision to invade was made.
Think Alastair spends too much time deflecting the UK and Tony Blair’s involvement. Because America, the special relationship, Poland Denmark were in too etc etc I get that Tony Blair is his friend but the PM needs to take responsibility and Alastair needs to admit they made a catastrophic mistake, the repercussions of which are still being felt today
absolutely exceptional episode! Rory was superb! Perhaps Alastair might have a more introspective (&less defensive pushing a narrative) approach if it weren't for thr fact that many of the key players (e.g. Tony blair) are still very active in policy making and within the sphere of intl orgs..
I would like to ask Alastair the question: when was the last time you genuinely thought to yourself "thank god we went to war in Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein"? Personally, I can not remember ever thinking that.
@@heem6619 Okay so, I know someone who, married a charming , whom after the marriage became a violent drunk that beat my friend. followed by years of violent conflict, divorce and post devoice issue including with the children etc. Would you think that my friend was the one at fault?
@@heem6619 No, I was making a point, to which an answer would be given, have a bit of a dialogue. I'll go though it regardless. When people get married They do so with expectations of it going a certain way, hell they may consider that things may not work out, and devoice happens, and they may be the ones to be so unlucky. If you expect to divorce someone in general you dont marry them, If you expect their whole personality to change you dont marry them, If you expect them to be a violent drunk you dont marry them. But arguably, they made the choice so they are to blame, the fact that they did not consider the above makes them choice even worse. Of course its somewhat nonsense, Because ultimately there was no knowledge of the the future. If we only act with perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions, we personally and as states would be paralyzed. So one can view that actions can be taken with good intentions, good predictions on seemingly good evidence, but be catastrophic. Ultimately we do not know the result of our actions (let alone others) until we do them. So one could have the view that, no, the Iraq war in hindsight was terrible idea, but stand by the idea of supporting the invasion. They are not incongruous ideas. Thus the reason that they are separate questions.
Campbell’s spending a lot of time defending the honour of both himself and Blair here, arguing the point of whether the decision was morally right in a personal sense, as opposed to Stewart who seems to be arguing on the actual consequences and mechanics of the invasion. That’s why Campbell readily dismissed Stewart’s persistent questioning of the intelligence procurement - for him its very much about the immediate moment of the decision being made and the people involved in its making.
The man responsible for the invasion was a man called Ahmed chalamy. He hated saddam hussein, because chalamys family were murdered by saddam. But the cia the us security community said that he could not be trusted and that chalamy was conman a fraud and a liar. He concocted the bogus nonsense that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Chalamy was kurdish and they had loathed saddam. They supported the war. The cia really hated chalamy. In the end when chalamy was dying said that he made up the whole thing that saddam had weapons mass destruction.
@@markdaly1648 Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi was indeed a charlatan but his was not the only problem (Also he seems to have been under Iranian influence and not Kurdish from what I can tell.). The Americans had their own reasons to go in unless you think some agitator dictates American Foreign Policy.
This was Pandora's Box, changed the world, changed the course of history, we still live with the repercussions, all bad. I'm leftish, but Blair was wrong wrong wrong. This was also the end of his career and what had been a relatively benign and progressive leadership. And there were no WMD.
Yes, one bad decision and all the good ones and intentions turn to dust. Just ask D Cameron about a certain referendum. Oh and at least Pandora's box had hope at the bottom
I watched the invasion of Iraq on Al Jazeera while sitting in my lounge room in Jakarta. No "embedding" with the Al Jazeera journalists. I saw children in hospitals injured in the bombing. I saw two Al Jazeera journalists targetted and killed by a US aircraft. I saw the devastation inflicted on the civilian population in Iraq. All these two are talking about is the noise behind the decision to illegally invade Iraq, illegal in the sense that the aggressors did NOT have UN licence to do so. The US military were not allowed to publish figures on the number of civilians killed. Estimates that I have seen put the number at at least 100,000. I like Alastair but on this issue he is no more than an apologist for the tragedy imposed upon the Iraqi population. Not once have I heard him say anything about the reality that was inflicted upon the Iraqi people. I know that Saddm was a demon, but whose responsibility was it to free the country of him?
Indeed "but whose responsibility was it to free the country of him?" Whose was it? Inform me? I do agree it was illegal (Not for America by the way, they are not integrated into the United Nations like Britain is. They already had legislation setting regime change as the policy of the United States.) internationally inasmuch as the U.N. is that law but in Britain itself no as Parliament itself signed off on it. This proves how @~?£ the U.N. is as a body. Also al jazeera was about the most islamist "news" network you could have watched (No wonder so many from Indonesia ended up fighting in Iraq against the government.).
Campbell will never accept he got it wrong and that he has blood on his hands. He’s in complete denial. He is responsible for much of the mistrust that now permeates the political domain. Again, he’ll never acknowledge it. Fair play to Rory for calling him out. Campbell sounded rattled at the end - he’s a clever bloke, who must be suffering from high levels of cognitive dissonance.
@@tisFrancesfault Listen to his words - he makes excuses, uses the third person and never acknowledges personal responsibility. He deflects constantly. It’s what he is skilled at. I’d respect him more if he simply said, “I got it wrong, loads of innocent folks died and I take my share of the blame.” Instead, he’s engaged in his usual spin.
@@sbwords issue is that was not what was being discussed. It was about the lead up, the motive and justification. It is fair and understandable to stand by decisions made, with the information at the time. Decisions were made, didn't work out. Plus people don't care if Campbell thought that it was a mistake, as people only try to nail him to the wall on the initial decision.
@@tisFrancesfault I care what Campbell thinks because he needs to account for his actions . Others will then learn lessons and maybe innocent kids won’t die.
As someone who was against the war from the beginning, if anyone likes having their views challenged listen to Christopher Hitchens on his justification for the conflict. It's the closest I've ever come to being in support.
Hitchens lost his mind on this one. There were signs of him slightly returning to earth (he was critical of the aftermath and the use of torture etc) but he died before that process was complete. It’s an unfortunate stain on his character that he spent so much of his final years chumming up with people (pre 9/11 Hitchens would never have called Paul Woolworths a friend) he’d spent his life deploring and lashing out at people who shared what had recently been his views. And I don’t think I ever heard accept, as Alistair does in this video, that there were no WMD. I wonder how he’d have reacted to Chilcott because that report flatly contradicted many of his stated views.
I have been listening and watching these episodes for a while and have been holding off listening to this one. Alastair STILL has no shame and that is so very disappointing. I am afraid that everything he says/does is tarnished due to this event and inability to admit they were wrong...
I would like to hear what Tony Blair and Alastair back then thought about the interrogation of agent curveball in Germany. He is sometimes referred to as the key source for evidence of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But apparently to the intelligence officers speaking to him it was clear that he made all of that up out of personal anger towards Saddam's regime. This ultimately lead to the German government under chancellor Schröder withdrawing all support for an invasion of Iraq.
Rory's commentary was interesting, I think Campbell is simply unable to accept what he is ultimately shared in responsibility for and has to defend it. It really seems like the public was mislead by Campbell etc and the cause for war was unjustified, and they knew it, his defence here is weak and unconvincing.
Campbell was way out of his league in the political decisions made regarding the Iraq war. The wrong decision was made which resulted in significant and unnecessary loss of life. There was no weapons of mass destruction, which was the primary reason to justify war.
Fascinating discussion. Disappointedly and disgracefully the deaths and maiming of British service personnel are not mentioned at all. It’s accepted that the USA were going to go regardless of any UK involvement. We’re told that America’s forces made up 95 per cent of the total number. The UK’s involvement in numbers was minimal. We didn’t need to go. British lives could have been saved but were sacrificed. I hear no remorse in this conversation, unless I missed it somewhere
One must not downplay the British involvement but you are correct that the U.S. could have gone it alone (Although they were stretching themselves pretty thin.). The British put up something like 4% of their military for this which is much more than what America put in. Indeed that was the problem actually. Furthermore, whether Britain was going in or not was going to cause problems on the ground especially as summer was coming up. Still possible though yes.
It's easy to go on about hindsight but there were millions at the time, many of them Labour supporters or at least sympathetic, who protested against this action and knew it to be wrong. Personally I felt it would lead to Iraq splitting along racial/ ethnic as the country is a western invention but more important strengthen Iran's position as a regional power. It also did much to destroy Blair's personal credibility. One simply can't get away with blaming hindsight. It was a big call, Blair's mind was made up and it was WRONG!
@@yingyang1008 It might be my unwillingness to accept my government is as evil as the USA, but I don't necessarily think Blair had the same intentions as the Americans, who I think did it as part of the US/Israeli doctrine of systematic suppression of any emerging regional power in the middle east.
What sort of religious harmony was there before? Of course people at the time rightly pointed out that a shia government did not mean a democratic government. Also how is it a Western invention and how does that diminish it's worthiness to be a country? When the British seized it, it largely corresponded to ottoman administrative boundaries. One must remember that he won the next election (Although that may have been due to Tory support as well.) and he kept his seat despite a challenge from the left. I have no clue why the other parties did not try to oust him from the seat.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Does that include all the Muslims that died during the invasion, occupation and aftermath? The place is essentially a failed state now
I can't help but think listening to this thinking, if Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's and was using them, why was he not worthy of being invaded then? It's the fact that Alastair and Tony somehow can't fathom that leaving Saddam in place might be the lesser of two evils. Our current situation in the Middle-East now draws a direct connection with the hubris of the Western powers who thought they could topple the power structure of multiple nations and that they could install Western style democracy. I remember being a teen at the same and seeing diagrams of how Saddam had his chemical and nuclear weapons in bunkers. It was all total bullshit put out to convince the greater public, because they knew that without this cause they would not have the support for war. If they had not lied, the British system may have done its job and we would not have supported this war. Iraq/Afghanistan, along with the 2008 crisis, is the reason that an entire generation is disengaged with politics. They simply do not believe the system works anymore and who can blame them?
This is the first TRIP I've not enjoyed. I like Alistair yet I feel he is being somewhat disingenuous here and I wish it were otherwise. Putting hindsight aside, I remember distinctly my thoughts at the time of the Iraq War. Firstly, I believed then that the UN inspectors should have been given more time - certainly they said precisely this. Secondly, It seemed clear to me that, in the post-9/11 period, the US were hell bent on taking on Saddam regardless of the fact that Iraq was not behind the attack. Blair appeared far to willing to support this intention. Thirdly, I was very mistrustful of the 'intelligence' contained in both the September Dossier and the February Dossier (Dodgy Dossier). I do suspect that the intelligence may have been 'sexed up' possibly with the knowledge of Blair and even Alistair - albeit for reasons that they thought were the right ones (it is my belief). As a result I was very strongly against the war and I would have marched in London on 15th Feb 2003 had I not had other commitments. How strong my feelings were on these factors is best suggested by the fact that I am not at all a pacifist. I'm an ex-British Army infantry soldier and I fully supported Operation Desert Storm (the Gulf War). But for being in a reserved (Government) occupation at the time, I would have happily served there myself (I received call papers). A nation going to war is such a momentous decision it must always be a last resort and the case for doing so absolutely cast iron. In the case of the Iraq War I do not believe either were true. It was a catastrophic mistake and one for which I feel we are still suffering from - both in reputational terms abroad and for reasons of trust regarding politics, politicians in general and most specifically the Labour Party within the UK. However, today we actually DO have the benefit of hindsight and therefore, I feel Alistair's lack of contrition is a failing (I only wish that he vocalise this though - I don't want anymore sleep to be lost as do I like Alistair). That's not to say that ALL the blame lays with Blair and his Government, because my understanding is that Dearlove has much greater culpability. And indeed the US Bush administration were highly at fault. I would recommend the book by Brian Jones 'Failing Intelligence' for background reading - he was the Head of UK DIS (Defence Intelligence Staff) upon nuclear, biological and chemical weapons section at the time in question.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a similar in-depth discussion between Rory and a Brexit campaign insider (Dominic Cummings or someone at that level) on the 2016 referendum or the Article 50 negotiations. Perhaps we will have to wait until 2036.
21.30secs - and there were have it. Jizzing about power and prestige and getting excited by the process and impressing the Americans. Wood for the trees, Ali?
Things didn’t work out as we hoped! Hundreds of thousands of deaths Alistair including UK and USA people. Robin Cook could see the consequences so why couldn’t you and Blair?
What we were TOLD the world was like. None of this would have been possible without the newspapers. There was some independent thinking but I freely confess I read the dossier and was taken in.
Alistair I’ve heard you give great rational analysis of many topics but I’m afraid on Iraq you’re coming across as defensive . On one hand you say there were intelligence failures but then spend time defending them?
There is truly no hope for the world if the individuals involved in waging the Iraq war can still sit in front of a microphone and claim that, firstly, Saddam was a tyrant and therefore the UK was morally obliged to remove him (and only him alone); and that they still stand by the decision in hindsight even in seeing the inexcusable human cost, and the destabilization of the region. This is incorrigible immorality and deceit.
I find Rory's position of attacking the Intelligence Officers really jarring - is he (as a former civil servant, and a former minister) really encouraging ministers to systematically disregard the advice they are given by civil servants? (Especially in cases where the civil servants have much more expertise and the minister has none) The analogy I'd want to give is Kwarteng's minibudget where he disagreed with the civil servants so much the Permanent Secretary was fired [something Rory called out as a disgrace at the time] and in that case at least Kwarteng did have some economics expertise, definitely much more than Blair did on Islam/Middle East. When the chips are down I guess I agree with Alistair's position, but nevertheless this episode was great. In a similar vein to the debate about Afghanistan I do wish they'd talked more about the aftermath. It seems completely obvious to me that if the situation and had been handled differently we could've prevented ISIS/Taliban etc taking hold -- and if that had been the case people would look a lot more favourably on the war itself. In that sort of debate would be a discussion on the UK's ability to act on the international stage *without* the Americans
I wanted to see compelling evidence for wmd but none came. I remember shouting at my radio in frustration “Show us the f*cking evidence!” If it was clear to me, based on statements of experts like Blix and others (including outside of UK) that no one knew if they existed at the time of invasion, how could it be clear to Blair? Appeal to authority i.e. intelligence officers isn’t good enough. You have to get them to show their working that led to their assessment. They didn’t do this for us (the people, in whose name the action would be taken); it appears they didn’t do it for Blair et al. either.
Please can someone answer this question I always have about it all. As I remember the first gulf war ended with a ceasefire agreement which froze the conflict and stopped the multinational force from going all the way up to Baghdad and toppling the regime. The terms of the ceasefire were free and unhindered access to weapons inspectors. What Saddam then proceeded to do over the next few years was everything in his power to block inspectors from doing their job properly. To me, he has surely broken the terms of the ceasefire which then made the second gulf war legal. Even after he broke the terms UN security resolutions were still sought but on paper should not have been needed. I don't understand why there is this continued argument about the legality. Can someone explain?
Through out this episode I sat there and wondered how differently this interview would had developed if Alastair instead would have been allowed to, he him self, say "look, mistakes were made", and then had him go through what those mistakes were in his opinion. Then used that as a platform to start off from. I wonder if he had been as defensive about .... well about everything, if he had already been allowed to 'take the plunge' as it were on his own volition. As it were I didn't feel this interview was nearly as interesting as most of the others I've heard on this pod. 🤔 It was just an endless tirade of Alastair's about how Rory was making unfair accusations and prone to afterthoughts. What's the problem with afterthoughts? If you hope to learn something from past mistakes it is a necessity. I usually enjoy listening to Alastair but this was a bit embarrassing to be honest.
I would love to hear (and an idea for a podcast episode), both of your opinions on Noam Chomsky, both the man and his very cynical but believable theories of history and politics.
Not at all impressed by Alastair in this, far too flippant considering the magnitude of the disaster he helped spawn, glad Rory didn't give him the usual easy ride.
@@belindathorne9784 well he/they made a decision at the time, they cannot make decisions on the outcomes that haven't happened yet. It's hardly flippancy.
@@belindathorne9784 well tbh that's a frankly lazy an nonsense narrative. The rise in fundamentalist ideology was before Iraq, the largest terrorist attack in history was before the war. The rise of terrorist militias in Africa and the middle east was not new. The Chinese's rise was always going to happen and Iraq is irrelevant to that. Putin also has nothing to do with it. Associating everything bad in the world as a consequence of the Iraq war is frankly childish.
I'm glad to hear Campbell has some sleepless nights because of Iraq. He should have some sleepless nights in prison to atone for his part in the whole debacle which led to loss of life, and loss of press freedom, brought about by his rigid defence of the actions of the UK & US. It's comforting to listen to his discomfort as he wrestles with his memory of the spin rather than the truth. A great episode about a sorry episode. Well done Rory for getting close to rattling a hint of truth out of the bars of the cage.
Rory wins hands down, and for no other reason than simply following the most fundamental priciples of intelligence gathering and assessment. If Iraq had a deployment system that could reach Europe in 45 minutes, this would imply a missile platform, a structure which would be clearly observable by satellites. Alistair remains loyal to Blair's decisions for the unfortunate reason that the most difficult words anyone can ever have to say are "I was wrong".
This is the worst argument. Multiple reports and commissions layed down that it was not a lie about what they were being told that was the issue but the veracity of those details. There was a lie but it is not where people are focusing.
Remember the fuss about those huge gun barrel sections made by a British company for Iraq? What a fuss that was! The Tel Aviv gun or whatever. Then Saddam started missiling Israel. Oh what a circus oh what a show...
The attack on Tel Aviv was the 1st Iraq war. The 2nd, one feels, was Israels promised payback, but they are so secretive we will probably never know. In my imagination a Mossad agent pulled Saddam out of that hole and said, we told you at a time of our own choosing.
Alistair, a passionate defence, but your main defence is based upon the fact that Saddam had WMD’s in the past. The film ‘In the loop’ is as an accurate depiction of the war as your defence to go to war. Just admit you buckled under pressure. The yanks wanted war, they wanted oil they stitched you up. Alistair, Tony B maybe a good mate but it was a huge mistake that cost thousands of lives. The hawks got the oil - mission accomplished.
It had little to nothing to do with oil. That canard is just absurd too. Some Americans wanted war, George Walker Bush co-operated with Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to go down the United Nations route.
I've gone back and forth one my thoughts on the Iraq war, and for a while now I've sat at not being against it. I think a problem we have is that we ultimately look at the war in retrospect and then apply the outcome to the decision making. It didn't go ideally, to be put mildly, but it did oust a genocidal, chemical weapons using warmonger, did introduce even if tenuously, plurality in Iraq.
Absolutely correct, the difficulty is always in the lack of considering what would/could have happened instead. Truth is Saddam would have died of natural causes sometime in the last 10 years and his sons would have instigated a civil war.
Disagree. I think it’s quite telling that the entire Middle East views the coalition as the bad guys. When the victims you supposedly saved hate you to this day, it suggests you did something wrong More harm was caused in the Iraq war than Sadam ever caused.
@@ghostsniiper1 Well the issue there is that the Kurds didn't gain statehood, the Sunnis lost political absolutism, and the Shia are overly allied to Iran. To bypass that, you would support the active carving Of Iraq? Form a Kurdistan, Hand over the Shia majority to Iran, and leave the Sunni to try to operate independently or seek itself as an impendent power. The coalition hoped for a pluralistic state.
@@tisFrancesfault I’m referring more to overthrowing Sadam. Yes he was an evil guy. But more damage was done overthrowing him than he ever committed. Plus once the coalition deposed him, they had no plan for the future of Iraq. Introduce democracy, freedom and run off back to our part of the world. It’s typical western arrogance that their values are objectively the best and everyone would benefit. Iraq is still a failed state today because of it
@@ghostsniiper1 Both those statements aren't true. The middle east is a fragmented one with those in support of and against western intervention. And in terms of harm it depends on who you are, if you're a kurd who no longer lives in fear of gas atttacks or a young girl who no longer fear being raped in a dungeon or a journalist who no longer fears having your entire family executed for thought crimes then I imagine you're pretty grateful saddam is gone.
I'm a year late to this one, but I think when you boil it down I think Blair/Labour/Britain came to the conclusion that if the United States was going in come what may, that it was best for the UK and global security that Britain lend legitimacy to American foreign policy when it was completely isolated on the UN Security Council post-9/11. Perhaps additional aerial and logistics support to America (not that it needed any) would have been more digestable than fighting shoulder to shoulder, but alas. People forget there would also have been huge pressure from America and the context of 9/11 around that time changed everything. If it makes you feel any better about it, Alastair, there's no telling what Iraq would look like in an alternate timeline. There is a very real possibility that worse could have happened, and although different lives would have been lost or spared, Sadam was a basketcase waiting to happen with a track record to prove it.
i like alastair but i've never been able to justify britains part in the iraq war and he was a massive part of that. rory did well arguing the other point
Brilliant podcast AND Rory drops the F-Bomb. One question I would have is the pair never discussed the theory that the US Govt wanted to secure and control Iraq's oil reserves for its own needs. And to establish a US friendly Govt in Iraq to this end. That the WMD, Iraq were helping the Taliban and Saddam was a despot dictator were nothing more then smokescreen reasons for the invasion? Wold love to hear Alistair's opinion on this?
Absolute bull@~?£, there is no evidence that they were willing to go to war merely for oil. They could have continued the Aid for Oil programme the United Nations had if they were going to get oil. The U.S. did want a friendly government in Iraq because they thought a regime that was democratic and liberal would be better for their interests there. Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti furthermore was an evil man that deserved that sentence. This is not to deny that especially the Americans had oil interests there.
Yes, to the extent British commitment towards allies, what does that mean as evidence based? When the short-termism of domestic politics, does not take responsibility for past expeditions or exploits but to cherry pick. There seemed no consistent logic for the second gulf war but retribution! The subsequent betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, the humanitarian disaster that is Afghanistan, its heart braking, especially the attitude of those responsible for humanitarian relief, to the extent to contrive as illegal & victimize minorities at home. Is there a dimension of pathological denial, a narcissism associated, to demote convention?
At the end of the day, stopping a murderous dictator was enough reason to go to war (I know some people will disagree with our role as world police but I think we have a duty to protect people) So I don't understand why we had to lie about it!.
One has to have a reason to do it that satisfies the national interest. Not sure this fulfils that. To be truly benevolent is a strange foreign policy even if I am agree with it.
Alastair, like Blair, has never been able to answer the key question. What was there in 2003 that uniquely justified the invasion of Iraq? Had we taken Saddam down when he was gassing his own people, that makes sense. Had we gone into Baghdad in 1991 (would have needed a new UN Resolution), no complaints. But over a decade later there was no compelling case that Saddam was sufficient threat to justify us taking him down. And it’s not hindsight to say that because so many of us were saying it at the time.
So you don't accept that Saddam was a brutal dictator and war monger with an appalling human rights record who actually did use chemical weapons against the Kurds?
@@tisFrancesfault I was a teenager at the time and knew, along with millions of others, that it was all fabricated nonsense If you're too stupid to realize such things, best you stop voting and commentating on anything of significance - imagine what else is going on that you simply accept at face value via your TV screen
@@johnnotrealname8168 The number of dead Iraqis during and after the invasion is there for all to see.... Then there's the infamous Madeline Albright quote: "We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?” “I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
@@yingyang1008 When did she say that? In any case I agree the sanctions were stupid although that has more to do with how sanctions work. In any case the number of dead Iraqis are also there to see before the invasion.
Blair/Campbell responsible for the worst error in UK politics in living memory. I enjoy most of these podcasts and listening to Campbell on subjects like political history/mental health. However, I think it is appalling he is asked to comment on TV/media on current affairs (such as the nonsense around Gary Linekar recently) as his judgement is fundamentally flawed on a catastrophic level.
If he was a decent person he never would have done what he did.Falsifying information in order to help start a war is not what decent people do.The rehabilitation of Alistair Campbell (mainly because he has left leaning politics) is utterly depressing, he should have been never heard from again in public after what he did.
I don't know how decent he is when he won't even consider just how wrong he is. He'll defend Blair too. When it's clear by how they talk about it, just how taken in they were by the Bush Administration and how there was almost a sense of racist ignorance of the Middle East that coloured their perception and got them to accept dodgy intelligence reports.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. While we can look back at specifics and draw conclusions that can be quite different to those drawn before, we can rarely use one specific 'fact' to prove our position. It all makes me think of Sir Humphrey going on about knowing what we know, as well as knowing some, but not all of what we don't know. I believe that time has revealed some of what 'we didn't know we didn't know', however, I would not be surprised if there was still much to be revealed. As to whether those revelations would change or reinforce the accepted views, who knows? I also believe that we need to accept that we can do the wrong thing for the right reasons as well as do the right thing for the wrong reasons. This means that simply proving or disproving a particular 'reason' is not enough. While I hope to be informed before coming to a conclusion, I always try to remain open enough to accept that it may have been based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and that it may need to be modified.
@Ying Yang I deliberately left that out as well as doing the right thing for the right reasons because I was trying to highlight the possibility of an apparent contradiction rather than passing an opinion.
@@neilpickup237 I agree it's possible that governments sometimes make the wrong decisions with the best intentions I don't believe for a single second that war in Iraq was on of those occasions Millions of ordinary people took to the streets because it was so obvious that we were being lied to And remember Dr David Kelly and Robin Cook About as sinister as it can get I guess you could argue that the UK was in an impossible position though given it's puppet state status
Great to hear Rory getting Alastair on the back foot. Both angry, disagreeing, yet still respectful. Refreshing!
Yeah, quite delightful, really ... considering that it's always Alastair slightly mocking Rory all the time. Just shows that Rory can hold his own and was being amiable most times.
Campbell knows he's still on very shaky ground trying to justify this and is trying to convince no one but himself and is still far too bombastic. He's rattled because he knows he was and still is clearly wrong. Respect to Rory who is much more nuanced, thoughtful, and informed.
"They f*cked up really, really bigly." Well (and pithily) said, Mr Stewart.
First time I have heard Rory swear. I do respect Alastair and agree with him on many issues. But the Iraq war was a black mark against Blair and the whole New Labour project and undermined the good work done on the economy reducing poverty etc.
The worst thing it has done is that people no longer believe intelligence from our intelligence agencies even when they got it spot like the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I do accept though that the United States was going to invade anyway and that the neo cons led by Cheney had already convinced Bush that invasion was necessary so containment was off the table. Yes the UK could have sat it out but it probably wouldn't have made much difference to what the neo cons wanted to do they wanted war.
The Neo-Con era like Vietnam was a US foreign policy mistake, and as Rory pointed out the US/UK relationship would've survived.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Exactly Obama was elected on the back of Iraq war scepticism
@@SirAntoniousBlock Not just survived but thrived, George Walker Bush told Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair that he could stay out of it if it would harm his position.
Rory’s maxim of ‘Disagreeing agreeably’ put to the test and surviving (but it got tense at times!)
And one of the main reasons I'm here !.
Excellent as always. My one overall gripe is Alastair is too bombastic and Rory too well mannered. What is good with this one is Rory standing his ground. Whether I agree or not, more of this please.
The thing that gets me worked up about this is Alastair Campbell's ignorance about Middle East dynamics. Even as Rory Stewart tries to explain it to him. There is zero take-up on this point.
Briillant episode. Love the tension and serious adults talking about serious things. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can’t be easy for either of you.
I think Robin Cook made the most convincing argument against going to a war that would do far more harm that any of the other possible outcomes
Robin Cook’s resignation speech in the Commons was very powerful. A classic.
Thanks for doing that and I can't wait for the second part. Great to hear Alastair's take on it.
Classic episode. An honest unfiltered debate.
Putting aside the morality, and the enormous human cost, this was a blunder of the highest order, purely from a geopolitical perspective. For Campbell to suggest that Blair was committed to the war for strategic reasons just confirms my belief that Blair was clueless on the actual subject matter of almost everything he got involved in. Great political operator, but awful in terms of deciding policy.
But reading the comments most people who listen to this podcast, which was probably devised for THIS episode alone, are in their own media bubble and think its jolly good stuff.
Iraq is not exactly against the West, although for religious reasons very much in Iran's sphere, and is not starting wars left and right. A base against islamism too.
That was fascinating. Rory made a superb interlocutor. Polite, erudite, brushed aside the occasional straw man, and returned to the central point each time there was a derailment, and confronted Alistair head on with the hard truths. I wish more political interviews could be like this, but it's probably the specific format of this channel and the relationship between the two of them which made it possible.
I admire Alistair for facing scrutiny on something so obviously disastrous. Rory said he was wrong and has changed his mind, I wonder if A will come to see all the pain and suffering caused?
Nah he's not facing scrutiny. He's justifying himself. He should be indicted.
@@0532phillipjoyFor what exactly?
@@johnnotrealname8168 Being a cheerleader for one of Britain's WORST and MOST DESASTROUS foreign policy adventures should deserve some punishment.
Indicted? Only if Blair is the first in line! I am not sure if the enormous human cost affects or in any shape creates concern or unease. If the answer is "no", fine be that way but don't scream your country is overrun with refugees from Middle East when UK was at the forefront of destabilizing those nations. Iraq, you break it you buy it!
Well done Rory and thank you for promoting a better understanding of other cultures before we meddle in things we don't understand.
In the end tony Blair was utterly shafted, used and then discarded by dick Cheney and the neo con gang for. Cheney really set him up. And then betrayed him.
Cheney really pushed for war and was pissed off when Bush snr, pulled out. Never forgave him and Bush Sr called Cheney and rumsfeld a couple of iron asses. Bush Sr was a moderate. Cheney was michiavellian figure who pushed Bush Jr to go to war after 9/11
Cheney never forgave Bush senior for pulling out of Iraq during gulf war one. Cheney was furious with Bush Sr. And because Bush was a moderate, Cheney did not trust him. He hates trump. Cannot stand him.
@@markdaly1648 This is not true actually. For starters George Herbert Walker Bush made a huge mistake in calling for an armed uprising and then proceeding to abandon the Kurds while death squads mowed them down (Some of that moderate I see.). Secondly George Walker Bush was in charge of Foreign Policy not his Vice-President. Again an absurd canard.
Very insightful, thank you for this dialogue!
This is an incredible episode, well worth any money. I'm glad they had the time and platform to clamly go through the evidence and focus on not only facts but the root cause analysis with human factors.
Rory does a masterpiece in diligently examining every piece of evidence and asking questions. He's also proposing ways the system could be improved and gives plenty of wise, detailed, and situational feedback.
I wish all facts were examined to this level of intellectual scrutiny, maybe we wouldn't go around the world killing so many people in pointless wars.
Please can you have more of these debates where you each take an opposing view on a subject, becomes very boring when you agree with each other all the time, it’s refreshing for the listener to hear this kind of respectful debate
Loyalty is wonderful, up to a point. Campbell's loyalty to Blair is past that point, beyond which it's a character flaw.
Campbell defends Blair’s insight when it turned out he was completely blind and had no insight whatsoever and Campbell is still blind to the actual reality.
Impressive and dynamic-helps to clarify the thinking behind the decision, We need to learn from this disaster.
Just wanted to thank Alistair for taking the time to cover this issue. Discussion of the subject is clearly difficult.
"You can't say that! You can't say that!"
- Campbell's response to every question.
I needed to hear this, I'd always been anti war thanks to Benn's speech but finally a lot of the unsaid other side today makes me understand it a lot more.
A lot more...such as what? You are allowing Campbell to befuddle you with colourful details which don't begin to paint over the vast cracks in the appalling canvas of this period of British life.
Incredibly complex and sensitive subject that the two of you handled well, in spite of your differences.
Fantastic and nuanced discussion. I'm hoping to hear two questions answered, at the time (i.e. without hindsight) what decisions did Alastair disagree with and secondly if he knew then what we know now how does he think things would have been handled differently?
He did know what we know now - he's a spin doctor, his job was to take us into an illegal war based on nonsense, using propaganda
Nuanced my foot. It's spin spin spin.
I like how Alistair is so willing to absolve people he worked with of the responsibility of the death of a million people. Even compared to Brexshit, the adventurism he supported is the biggest foreign policy mistake we have made in the modern era. The fact that he can't see it was a mistake is just dumbfounding. In a just world he'd probably be in jail
Now that was Interesting, well done, very brave.
Very spirited questions of Alastir and standing ground by Rory. Great discussion
9/11 and then it all kicked off - people on US streets wanted action, whoever it was against...
fake 911 you mean
There are only two alternative views reasonably open. The first is that the decision to invade Iraq was criminal because it was made without any justification at all and was simply a war crime carried out by Blair and the relevant members of the executive. That view is based on a conclusion that Blair and his executive lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an invasion that was carried out for a quite different reason namely that the UK and its allies wanted a regime change because it suited them. Part of that process involved manipulating the intelligence services to produce a case justifying a decision to go to war. This is what occurred in the United States where the intelligence apparatus was politicized and produced the "evidence" Bush required to justify the invasion. The second view is that the invasion decision was simply the result of a very high level of incompetence and negligence on the part of Blair and his advisors. This view is based on the conclusion that the intelligence services were so utterly incompetent that Blair should be excused for his conduct. It is the view that Rory prefers to subscribe to even though he seems to find it hard to believe. The nonsense from Campbell about the Iraqi threat is about as desperate as it gets. There was no evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the UK at the time or later. The argument (without evidence) never went beyond pointing out that Saddam was a nasty dictator and imagining a threat to the UK that might have emerged eventually if various improbable scenarios occurred. The nonsense about WMD and UN inspectors is typical obfuscation by Campbell and was utterly debunked by the inspectors themselves before the decision to invade was made.
Think Alastair spends too much time deflecting the UK and Tony Blair’s involvement. Because America, the special relationship, Poland Denmark were in too etc etc
I get that Tony Blair is his friend but the PM needs to take responsibility and Alastair needs to admit they made a catastrophic mistake, the repercussions of which are still being felt today
absolutely exceptional episode! Rory was superb! Perhaps Alastair might have a more introspective (&less defensive pushing a narrative) approach if it weren't for thr fact that many of the key players (e.g. Tony blair) are still very active in policy making and within the sphere of intl orgs..
I would like to ask Alastair the question: when was the last time you genuinely thought to yourself "thank god we went to war in Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein"? Personally, I can not remember ever thinking that.
Tbf thought that is a separate question from the topic.
@@tisFrancesfault Is it? If you want to defend or condemn the war shouldn't you do a cost/benefit analysis on it first?
@@heem6619 Okay so, I know someone who, married a charming , whom after the marriage became a violent drunk that beat my friend. followed by years of violent conflict, divorce and post devoice issue including with the children etc.
Would you think that my friend was the one at fault?
@@tisFrancesfault I noticed you ignored my question. So I'll ignore yours in return. Goodbye.
@@heem6619 No, I was making a point, to which an answer would be given, have a bit of a dialogue. I'll go though it regardless.
When people get married They do so with expectations of it going a certain way, hell they may consider that things may not work out, and devoice happens, and they may be the ones to be so unlucky.
If you expect to divorce someone in general you dont marry them, If you expect their whole personality to change you dont marry them, If you expect them to be a violent drunk you dont marry them.
But arguably, they made the choice so they are to blame, the fact that they did not consider the above makes them choice even worse.
Of course its somewhat nonsense, Because ultimately there was no knowledge of the the future.
If we only act with perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions, we personally and as states would be paralyzed.
So one can view that actions can be taken with good intentions, good predictions on seemingly good evidence, but be catastrophic. Ultimately we do not know the result of our actions (let alone others) until we do them.
So one could have the view that, no, the Iraq war in hindsight was terrible idea, but stand by the idea of supporting the invasion. They are not incongruous ideas. Thus the reason that they are separate questions.
Campbell’s spending a lot of time defending the honour of both himself and Blair here, arguing the point of whether the decision was morally right in a personal sense, as opposed to Stewart who seems to be arguing on the actual consequences and mechanics of the invasion.
That’s why Campbell readily dismissed Stewart’s persistent questioning of the intelligence procurement - for him its very much about the immediate moment of the decision being made and the people involved in its making.
You mean like Dr David Kelly and Robin Cook?
The man responsible for the invasion was a man called Ahmed chalamy. He hated saddam hussein, because chalamys family were murdered by saddam. But the cia the us security community said that he could not be trusted and that chalamy was conman a fraud and a liar. He concocted the bogus nonsense that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Chalamy was kurdish and they had loathed saddam. They supported the war. The cia really hated chalamy. In the end when chalamy was dying said that he made up the whole thing that saddam had weapons mass destruction.
@@markdaly1648 Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi was indeed a charlatan but his was not the only problem (Also he seems to have been under Iranian influence and not Kurdish from what I can tell.). The Americans had their own reasons to go in unless you think some agitator dictates American Foreign Policy.
This was Pandora's Box, changed the world, changed the course of history, we still live with the repercussions, all bad. I'm leftish, but Blair was wrong wrong wrong. This was also the end of his career and what had been a relatively benign and progressive leadership. And there were no WMD.
Yes, one bad decision and all the good ones and intentions turn to dust. Just ask D Cameron about a certain referendum. Oh and at least Pandora's box had hope at the bottom
He won the next election though.
I watched the invasion of Iraq on Al Jazeera while sitting in my lounge room in Jakarta. No "embedding" with the Al Jazeera journalists. I saw children in hospitals injured in the bombing. I saw two Al Jazeera journalists targetted and killed by a US aircraft. I saw the devastation inflicted on the civilian population in Iraq. All these two are talking about is the noise behind the decision to illegally invade Iraq, illegal in the sense that the aggressors did NOT have UN licence to do so. The US military were not allowed to publish figures on the number of civilians killed. Estimates that I have seen put the number at at least 100,000. I like Alastair but on this issue he is no more than an apologist for the tragedy imposed upon the Iraqi population. Not once have I heard him say anything about the reality that was inflicted upon the Iraqi people. I know that Saddm was a demon, but whose responsibility was it to free the country of him?
@@HistoricalPerspectiveRBr AJ was launched in 1996
@@SA-oq5lz And I even googled that before posting to check I wasn't misremembering, and looked at it and still misread it. Wow.
Indeed "but whose responsibility was it to free the country of him?" Whose was it? Inform me? I do agree it was illegal (Not for America by the way, they are not integrated into the United Nations like Britain is. They already had legislation setting regime change as the policy of the United States.) internationally inasmuch as the U.N. is that law but in Britain itself no as Parliament itself signed off on it. This proves how @~?£ the U.N. is as a body. Also al jazeera was about the most islamist "news" network you could have watched (No wonder so many from Indonesia ended up fighting in Iraq against the government.).
Very interesting. Thank you!
Stay pals guys. Fascinating discussion ...
Yeah what's a few hundred thousand deaths and the destruction of a country between friends
This was a brilliant listen
Campbell will never accept he got it wrong and that he has blood on his hands. He’s in complete denial. He is responsible for much of the mistrust that now permeates the political domain. Again, he’ll never acknowledge it. Fair play to Rory for calling him out. Campbell sounded rattled at the end - he’s a clever bloke, who must be suffering from high levels of cognitive dissonance.
One can stand by the decisions made at the time and also acknowledge that that had serious and unintended consequences, which Campbell does.
@@tisFrancesfault No, if you appreciate the damage the war did you end up doing what Rory did, and denounce the entire thing.
@@tisFrancesfault Listen to his words - he makes excuses, uses the third person and never acknowledges personal responsibility. He deflects constantly. It’s what he is skilled at. I’d respect him more if he simply said, “I got it wrong, loads of innocent folks died and I take my share of the blame.” Instead, he’s engaged in his usual spin.
@@sbwords issue is that was not what was being discussed. It was about the lead up, the motive and justification.
It is fair and understandable to stand by decisions made, with the information at the time. Decisions were made, didn't work out.
Plus people don't care if Campbell thought that it was a mistake, as people only try to nail him to the wall on the initial decision.
@@tisFrancesfault I care what Campbell thinks because he needs to account for his actions . Others will then learn lessons and maybe innocent kids won’t die.
Extremely interesting topic! Do many more episodes on this!
As someone who was against the war from the beginning, if anyone likes having their views challenged listen to Christopher Hitchens on his justification for the conflict. It's the closest I've ever come to being in support.
Hitchens lost his mind on this one. There were signs of him slightly returning to earth (he was critical of the aftermath and the use of torture etc) but he died before that process was complete. It’s an unfortunate stain on his character that he spent so much of his final years chumming up with people (pre 9/11 Hitchens would never have called Paul Woolworths a friend) he’d spent his life deploring and lashing out at people who shared what had recently been his views. And I don’t think I ever heard accept, as Alistair does in this video, that there were no WMD. I wonder how he’d have reacted to Chilcott because that report flatly contradicted many of his stated views.
I have been listening and watching these episodes for a while and have been holding off listening to this one. Alastair STILL has no shame and that is so very disappointing. I am afraid that everything he says/does is tarnished due to this event and inability to admit they were wrong...
38:38 The greatest moment in the history of _The Rest is Politics_ podcast, Rory F-Bomb! 😆
And even then he put it mildly.
@@farhadchaudhry Rory actually played a blinder.
Shocking.
@@131alexa I actually was lol.
@@SirAntoniousBlock So was I! 😀
I would like to hear what Tony Blair and Alastair back then thought about the interrogation of agent curveball in Germany.
He is sometimes referred to as the key source for evidence of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But apparently to the intelligence officers speaking to him it was clear that he made all of that up out of personal anger towards Saddam's regime. This ultimately lead to the German government under chancellor Schröder withdrawing all support for an invasion of Iraq.
They would have known the intelligence was fuzzy at best. That is the lie.
Rory's commentary was interesting, I think Campbell is simply unable to accept what he is ultimately shared in responsibility for and has to defend it. It really seems like the public was mislead by Campbell etc and the cause for war was unjustified, and they knew it, his defence here is weak and unconvincing.
Awesome podcast
Campbell was way out of his league in the political decisions made regarding the Iraq war. The wrong decision was made which resulted in significant and unnecessary loss of life. There was no weapons of mass destruction, which was the primary reason to justify war.
Rory for Prime Minister!!
Fascinating discussion. Disappointedly and disgracefully the deaths and maiming of British service personnel are not mentioned at all. It’s accepted that the USA were going to go regardless of any UK involvement. We’re told that America’s forces made up 95 per cent of the total number. The UK’s involvement in numbers was minimal. We didn’t need to go. British lives could have been saved but were sacrificed.
I hear no remorse in this conversation, unless I missed it somewhere
One must not downplay the British involvement but you are correct that the U.S. could have gone it alone (Although they were stretching themselves pretty thin.). The British put up something like 4% of their military for this which is much more than what America put in. Indeed that was the problem actually. Furthermore, whether Britain was going in or not was going to cause problems on the ground especially as summer was coming up. Still possible though yes.
It's easy to go on about hindsight but there were millions at the time, many of them Labour supporters or at least sympathetic, who protested against this action and knew it to be wrong.
Personally I felt it would lead to Iraq splitting along racial/ ethnic as the country is a western invention but more important strengthen Iran's position as a regional power.
It also did much to destroy Blair's personal credibility. One simply can't get away with blaming hindsight.
It was a big call, Blair's mind was made up and it was WRONG!
It wasn't wrong because they knew exactly what they were doing - the outcome in Iraq is exactly what was wanted
@@yingyang1008 It might be my unwillingness to accept my government is as evil as the USA, but I don't necessarily think Blair had the same intentions as the Americans, who I think did it as part of the US/Israeli doctrine of systematic suppression of any emerging regional power in the middle east.
@@yingyang1008 Okay mate no it was not. The invasion was secular at worst and saved muslims from a tyrannical government.
What sort of religious harmony was there before? Of course people at the time rightly pointed out that a shia government did not mean a democratic government. Also how is it a Western invention and how does that diminish it's worthiness to be a country? When the British seized it, it largely corresponded to ottoman administrative boundaries. One must remember that he won the next election (Although that may have been due to Tory support as well.) and he kept his seat despite a challenge from the left. I have no clue why the other parties did not try to oust him from the seat.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Does that include all the Muslims that died during the invasion, occupation and aftermath?
The place is essentially a failed state now
I can't help but think listening to this thinking, if Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's and was using them, why was he not worthy of being invaded then? It's the fact that Alastair and Tony somehow can't fathom that leaving Saddam in place might be the lesser of two evils. Our current situation in the Middle-East now draws a direct connection with the hubris of the Western powers who thought they could topple the power structure of multiple nations and that they could install Western style democracy.
I remember being a teen at the same and seeing diagrams of how Saddam had his chemical and nuclear weapons in bunkers. It was all total bullshit put out to convince the greater public, because they knew that without this cause they would not have the support for war. If they had not lied, the British system may have done its job and we would not have supported this war.
Iraq/Afghanistan, along with the 2008 crisis, is the reason that an entire generation is disengaged with politics. They simply do not believe the system works anymore and who can blame them?
This is the first TRIP I've not enjoyed.
I like Alistair yet I feel he is being somewhat disingenuous here and I wish it were otherwise.
Putting hindsight aside, I remember distinctly my thoughts at the time of the Iraq War.
Firstly, I believed then that the UN inspectors should have been given more time - certainly they said precisely this.
Secondly, It seemed clear to me that, in the post-9/11 period, the US were hell bent on taking on Saddam regardless of the fact that Iraq was not behind the attack. Blair appeared far to willing to support this intention.
Thirdly, I was very mistrustful of the 'intelligence' contained in both the September Dossier and the February Dossier (Dodgy Dossier). I do suspect that the intelligence may have been 'sexed up' possibly with the knowledge of Blair and even Alistair - albeit for reasons that they thought were the right ones (it is my belief).
As a result I was very strongly against the war and I would have marched in London on 15th Feb 2003 had I not had other commitments.
How strong my feelings were on these factors is best suggested by the fact that I am not at all a pacifist. I'm an ex-British Army infantry soldier and I fully supported Operation Desert Storm (the Gulf War). But for being in a reserved (Government) occupation at the time, I would have happily served there myself (I received call papers).
A nation going to war is such a momentous decision it must always be a last resort and the case for doing so absolutely cast iron. In the case of the Iraq War I do not believe either were true. It was a catastrophic mistake and one for which I feel we are still suffering from - both in reputational terms abroad and for reasons of trust regarding politics, politicians in general and most specifically the Labour Party within the UK.
However, today we actually DO have the benefit of hindsight and therefore, I feel Alistair's lack of contrition is a failing (I only wish that he vocalise this though - I don't want anymore sleep to be lost as do I like Alistair).
That's not to say that ALL the blame lays with Blair and his Government, because my understanding is that Dearlove has much greater culpability. And indeed the US Bush administration were highly at fault.
I would recommend the book by Brian Jones 'Failing Intelligence' for background reading - he was the Head of UK DIS (Defence Intelligence Staff) upon nuclear, biological and chemical weapons section at the time in question.
It's times like listening to this that I am very glad I am not in Government and don't have to make these sorts of horrible decisions.
You mean whether to lie to the people i order to murder hundreds of thousands of people?
Wouldn't it be great if there were a similar in-depth discussion between Rory and a Brexit campaign insider (Dominic Cummings or someone at that level) on the 2016 referendum or the Article 50 negotiations. Perhaps we will have to wait until 2036.
21.30secs - and there were have it. Jizzing about power and prestige and getting excited by the process and impressing the Americans. Wood for the trees, Ali?
Things didn’t work out as we hoped! Hundreds of thousands of deaths Alistair including UK and USA people. Robin Cook could see the consequences so why couldn’t you and Blair?
Things went exactly as planned
The most evasive Alastair C. that I've heard so far.
Well done you two!!
We got it wrong I think. But I also remember what the world was like back in 2003 . former airman.
If you're an airman then you know that Muslims had nothing to do with 911
What we were TOLD the world was like. None of this would have been possible without the newspapers. There was some independent thinking but I freely confess I read the dossier and was taken in.
Alistair I’ve heard you give great rational analysis of many topics but I’m afraid on Iraq you’re coming across as defensive . On one hand you say there were intelligence failures but then spend time defending them?
There is truly no hope for the world if the individuals involved in waging the Iraq war can still sit in front of a microphone and claim that, firstly, Saddam was a tyrant and therefore the UK was morally obliged to remove him (and only him alone); and that they still stand by the decision in hindsight even in seeing the inexcusable human cost, and the destabilization of the region. This is incorrigible immorality and deceit.
I find Rory's position of attacking the Intelligence Officers really jarring - is he (as a former civil servant, and a former minister) really encouraging ministers to systematically disregard the advice they are given by civil servants? (Especially in cases where the civil servants have much more expertise and the minister has none) The analogy I'd want to give is Kwarteng's minibudget where he disagreed with the civil servants so much the Permanent Secretary was fired [something Rory called out as a disgrace at the time] and in that case at least Kwarteng did have some economics expertise, definitely much more than Blair did on Islam/Middle East.
When the chips are down I guess I agree with Alistair's position, but nevertheless this episode was great.
In a similar vein to the debate about Afghanistan I do wish they'd talked more about the aftermath. It seems completely obvious to me that if the situation and had been handled differently we could've prevented ISIS/Taliban etc taking hold -- and if that had been the case people would look a lot more favourably on the war itself. In that sort of debate would be a discussion on the UK's ability to act on the international stage *without* the Americans
How come millions of ordinary people knew it was all made up nonsense?
I wanted to see compelling evidence for wmd but none came. I remember shouting at my radio in frustration “Show us the f*cking evidence!” If it was clear to me, based on statements of experts like Blix and others (including outside of UK) that no one knew if they existed at the time of invasion, how could it be clear to Blair? Appeal to authority i.e. intelligence officers isn’t good enough. You have to get them to show their working that led to their assessment. They didn’t do this for us (the people, in whose name the action would be taken); it appears they didn’t do it for Blair et al. either.
Actually the intelligence people were telling politicians that the data was faulty so he has a point.
Rory around 38:00 gets heated and really puts in on Alastair. Lovely stuff, very interesting and sad that is our legacy
It reminds me of Robert McNamara who just got into more trouble every time he opened his mouth over Vietnam!
RIP Dr David Kelly
Please can someone answer this question I always have about it all. As I remember the first gulf war ended with a ceasefire agreement which froze the conflict and stopped the multinational force from going all the way up to Baghdad and toppling the regime. The terms of the ceasefire were free and unhindered access to weapons inspectors. What Saddam then proceeded to do over the next few years was everything in his power to block inspectors from doing their job properly. To me, he has surely broken the terms of the ceasefire which then made the second gulf war legal. Even after he broke the terms UN security resolutions were still sought but on paper should not have been needed. I don't understand why there is this continued argument about the legality. Can someone explain?
Through out this episode I sat there and wondered how differently this interview would had developed if Alastair instead would have been allowed to, he him self, say "look, mistakes were made", and then had him go through what those mistakes were in his opinion. Then used that as a platform to start off from.
I wonder if he had been as defensive about .... well about everything, if he had already been allowed to 'take the plunge' as it were on his own volition.
As it were I didn't feel this interview was nearly as interesting as most of the others I've heard on this pod. 🤔
It was just an endless tirade of Alastair's about how Rory was making unfair accusations and prone to afterthoughts. What's the problem with afterthoughts? If you hope to learn something from past mistakes it is a necessity.
I usually enjoy listening to Alastair but this was a bit embarrassing to be honest.
I would love to hear (and an idea for a podcast episode), both of your opinions on Noam Chomsky, both the man and his very cynical but believable theories of history and politics.
The guy who thinks Muslims did 911 - lol, nothing but another propaganda stooge, just like these two presenters
He falls into the left-wing crazy that dropping bombs on Libya is always wrong.
This is gonna be good
Not at all impressed by Alastair in this, far too flippant considering the magnitude of the disaster he helped spawn, glad Rory didn't give him the usual easy ride.
@@belindathorne9784 well he/they made a decision at the time, they cannot make decisions on the outcomes that haven't happened yet.
It's hardly flippancy.
@@belindathorne9784 well tbh that's a frankly lazy an nonsense narrative. The rise in fundamentalist ideology was before Iraq, the largest terrorist attack in history was before the war. The rise of terrorist militias in Africa and the middle east was not new.
The Chinese's rise was always going to happen and Iraq is irrelevant to that. Putin also has nothing to do with it. Associating everything bad in the world as a consequence of the Iraq war is frankly childish.
Just shows you can have discussion when both sides disagree and be civilised... Maybe that's why it has so few views?
I'm glad to hear Campbell has some sleepless nights because of Iraq. He should have some sleepless nights in prison to atone for his part in the whole debacle which led to loss of life, and loss of press freedom, brought about by his rigid defence of the actions of the UK & US.
It's comforting to listen to his discomfort as he wrestles with his memory of the spin rather than the truth.
A great episode about a sorry episode. Well done Rory for getting close to rattling a hint of truth out of the bars of the cage.
Rory wins hands down, and for no other reason than simply following the most fundamental priciples of intelligence gathering and assessment. If Iraq had a deployment system that could reach Europe in 45 minutes, this would imply a missile platform, a structure which would be clearly observable by satellites. Alistair remains loyal to Blair's decisions for the unfortunate reason that the most difficult words anyone can ever have to say are "I was wrong".
He wasn't wrong though, he knew he was lying - even teenagers knew it was all nonsense
Alastair may have many faults, but not disloyalty.
@@131alexa could say the same about Goebbels
@Ying Yang Well done - straight to Godwin's Law :)
This is the worst argument. Multiple reports and commissions layed down that it was not a lie about what they were being told that was the issue but the veracity of those details. There was a lie but it is not where people are focusing.
Hubris and Prestige - The Temptation of the Path of Good (Rationalization ?) Intent
Am I the only one who thinks Rory is pretty much spelling out he used to be S.I.S. (MI6).
Remember the fuss about those huge gun barrel sections made by a British company for Iraq? What a fuss that was! The Tel Aviv gun or whatever. Then Saddam started missiling Israel. Oh what a circus oh what a show...
The attack on Tel Aviv was the 1st Iraq war. The 2nd, one feels, was Israels promised payback, but they are so secretive we will probably never know. In my imagination a Mossad agent pulled Saddam out of that hole and said, we told you at a time of our own choosing.
Alistair, a passionate defence, but your main defence is based upon the fact that Saddam had WMD’s in the past. The film ‘In the loop’ is as an accurate depiction of the war as your defence to go to war. Just admit you buckled under pressure. The yanks wanted war, they wanted oil they stitched you up. Alistair, Tony B maybe a good mate but it was a huge mistake that cost thousands of lives. The hawks got the oil - mission accomplished.
It had little to nothing to do with oil. That canard is just absurd too. Some Americans wanted war, George Walker Bush co-operated with Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to go down the United Nations route.
Alastair did protest too much; Rory challenged him convincingly. Thought it was a good listen.
Too few politicians have a a background in science.
I've gone back and forth one my thoughts on the Iraq war, and for a while now I've sat at not being against it.
I think a problem we have is that we ultimately look at the war in retrospect and then apply the outcome to the decision making.
It didn't go ideally, to be put mildly, but it did oust a genocidal, chemical weapons using warmonger, did introduce even if tenuously, plurality in Iraq.
Absolutely correct, the difficulty is always in the lack of considering what would/could have happened instead. Truth is Saddam would have died of natural causes sometime in the last 10 years and his sons would have instigated a civil war.
Disagree. I think it’s quite telling that the entire Middle East views the coalition as the bad guys. When the victims you supposedly saved hate you to this day, it suggests you did something wrong
More harm was caused in the Iraq war than Sadam ever caused.
@@ghostsniiper1 Well the issue there is that the Kurds didn't gain statehood, the Sunnis lost political absolutism, and the Shia are overly allied to Iran. To bypass that, you would support the active carving Of Iraq? Form a Kurdistan, Hand over the Shia majority to Iran, and leave the Sunni to try to operate independently or seek itself as an impendent power. The coalition hoped for a pluralistic state.
@@tisFrancesfault I’m referring more to overthrowing Sadam. Yes he was an evil guy. But more damage was done overthrowing him than he ever committed. Plus once the coalition deposed him, they had no plan for the future of Iraq. Introduce democracy, freedom and run off back to our part of the world. It’s typical western arrogance that their values are objectively the best and everyone would benefit. Iraq is still a failed state today because of it
@@ghostsniiper1 Both those statements aren't true. The middle east is a fragmented one with those in support of and against western intervention.
And in terms of harm it depends on who you are, if you're a kurd who no longer lives in fear of gas atttacks or a young girl who no longer fear being raped in a dungeon or a journalist who no longer fears having your entire family executed for thought crimes then I imagine you're pretty grateful saddam is gone.
38:38 Rory is a Tiger with Teeth!!! 🐯
Campbell's ego and vanity really came to the fore here.
Alastair starts to make points and then deflects away
I'm a year late to this one, but I think when you boil it down I think Blair/Labour/Britain came to the conclusion that if the United States was going in come what may, that it was best for the UK and global security that Britain lend legitimacy to American foreign policy when it was completely isolated on the UN Security Council post-9/11. Perhaps additional aerial and logistics support to America (not that it needed any) would have been more digestable than fighting shoulder to shoulder, but alas. People forget there would also have been huge pressure from America and the context of 9/11 around that time changed everything. If it makes you feel any better about it, Alastair, there's no telling what Iraq would look like in an alternate timeline. There is a very real possibility that worse could have happened, and although different lives would have been lost or spared, Sadam was a basketcase waiting to happen with a track record to prove it.
i like alastair but i've never been able to justify britains part in the iraq war and he was a massive part of that. rory did well arguing the other point
Campbell shifty as ever.
Brilliant podcast AND Rory drops the F-Bomb. One question I would have is the pair never discussed the theory that the US Govt wanted to secure and control Iraq's oil reserves for its own needs. And to establish a US friendly Govt in Iraq to this end. That the WMD, Iraq were helping the Taliban and Saddam was a despot dictator were nothing more then smokescreen reasons for the invasion? Wold love to hear Alistair's opinion on this?
Absolute bull@~?£, there is no evidence that they were willing to go to war merely for oil. They could have continued the Aid for Oil programme the United Nations had if they were going to get oil. The U.S. did want a friendly government in Iraq because they thought a regime that was democratic and liberal would be better for their interests there. Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti furthermore was an evil man that deserved that sentence. This is not to deny that especially the Americans had oil interests there.
I think Rory is being particularly naive and misunderstands the context at the time.
They are a tag team duo, no one seems to notice.
Yes, to the extent British commitment towards allies, what does that mean as evidence based?
When the short-termism of domestic politics, does not take responsibility for past expeditions or exploits but to cherry pick.
There seemed no consistent logic for the second gulf war but retribution!
The subsequent betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, the humanitarian disaster that is Afghanistan, its heart braking, especially the attitude of those responsible for humanitarian relief, to the extent to contrive as illegal & victimize minorities at home.
Is there a dimension of pathological denial, a narcissism associated, to demote convention?
At the end of the day, stopping a murderous dictator was enough reason to go to war (I know some people will disagree with our role as world police but I think we have a duty to protect people) So I don't understand why we had to lie about it!.
One has to have a reason to do it that satisfies the national interest. Not sure this fulfils that. To be truly benevolent is a strange foreign policy even if I am agree with it.
Cambell lies his head off time after time.
Alistair cutes the UN weapons inspector as defence. The Head, Hans Blix, believes that Blair and Bush should face trial at the Hague.
The Hague is a pretty pitiful organisation. Furthermore it has no jurisdiction over George Walker Bush.
Campbell and Blair should be doing time.
Any time Campbell suggests trying Putin i wonder if he means after the Hague goes through Blairs backlog first.
Alastair, like Blair, has never been able to answer the key question. What was there in 2003 that uniquely justified the invasion of Iraq? Had we taken Saddam down when he was gassing his own people, that makes sense. Had we gone into Baghdad in 1991 (would have needed a new UN Resolution), no complaints. But over a decade later there was no compelling case that Saddam was sufficient threat to justify us taking him down. And it’s not hindsight to say that because so many of us were saying it at the time.
Trying very hard to defend the indefensible
I disagree, typically people make the retrospective arguments, which I don't think really makes any logical sense.
No such thing as indefensible. Everything has a defense, though perhaps not a very legitimate defense...
So you don't accept that Saddam was a brutal dictator and war monger with an appalling human rights record who actually did use chemical weapons against the Kurds?
@@tisFrancesfault I was a teenager at the time and knew, along with millions of others, that it was all fabricated nonsense
If you're too stupid to realize such things, best you stop voting and commentating on anything of significance - imagine what else is going on that you simply accept at face value via your TV screen
@@SirAntoniousBlock More brutal than the US and UK?
‘…George Bush perhaps less so.’ Never change Rory :)
Like having a pleasant fireside chat with Goebbels
Yes, there is something to that, captures the grossness.
How? There was no genocide here, in fact they ended the genocide or brought the guy who perpetrated it to Justice.
@@johnnotrealname8168 The number of dead Iraqis during and after the invasion is there for all to see....
Then there's the infamous Madeline Albright quote:
"We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?” “I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
@@yingyang1008 When did she say that? In any case I agree the sanctions were stupid although that has more to do with how sanctions work. In any case the number of dead Iraqis are also there to see before the invasion.
Are you a veteran? Trying to justify killing innocent people?
Blair/Campbell responsible for the worst error in UK politics in living memory.
I enjoy most of these podcasts and listening to Campbell on subjects like political history/mental health.
However, I think it is appalling he is asked to comment on TV/media on current affairs (such as the nonsense around Gary Linekar recently) as his judgement is fundamentally flawed on a catastrophic level.
It is difficult when you are a decent person like Alastair and you realise you were so profoundly in the wrong in the past.
If he was a decent person he never would have done what he did.Falsifying information in order to help start a war is not what decent people do.The rehabilitation of Alistair Campbell (mainly because he has left leaning politics) is utterly depressing, he should have been never heard from again in public after what he did.
decent, sure ok
I don't know how decent he is when he won't even consider just how wrong he is. He'll defend Blair too. When it's clear by how they talk about it, just how taken in they were by the Bush Administration and how there was almost a sense of racist ignorance of the Middle East that coloured their perception and got them to accept dodgy intelligence reports.
Decent person ,lied and thousands died .Lock him up
He is not decent, he spun porn for a living and then spun politics for Blair and is still spinning for the sake of his reputation now.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
While we can look back at specifics and draw conclusions that can be quite different to those drawn before, we can rarely use one specific 'fact' to prove our position.
It all makes me think of Sir Humphrey going on about knowing what we know, as well as knowing some, but not all of what we don't know.
I believe that time has revealed some of what 'we didn't know we didn't know', however, I would not be surprised if there was still much to be revealed.
As to whether those revelations would change or reinforce the accepted views, who knows?
I also believe that we need to accept that we can do the wrong thing for the right reasons as well as do the right thing for the wrong reasons. This means that simply proving or disproving a particular 'reason' is not enough.
While I hope to be informed before coming to a conclusion, I always try to remain open enough to accept that it may have been based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and that it may need to be modified.
You also have to accept that we can deliberately do wrong for the wrong reasons - then cover up with lies and a few murders
@Ying Yang I deliberately left that out as well as doing the right thing for the right reasons because I was trying to highlight the possibility of an apparent contradiction rather than passing an opinion.
@@neilpickup237 I agree it's possible that governments sometimes make the wrong decisions with the best intentions
I don't believe for a single second that war in Iraq was on of those occasions
Millions of ordinary people took to the streets because it was so obvious that we were being lied to
And remember Dr David Kelly and Robin Cook
About as sinister as it can get
I guess you could argue that the UK was in an impossible position though given it's puppet state status