Tony Blair states that Saddam Hussein “had to go” as justification for the invasion of Iraq.
“I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously, you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat,” he said.
“I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge,” he added.
This logic puts government above the law. The reckless disregard for international agreements and the sovereignty of nations was not respected by the British Empire, or any other. Although it is hard to defend the acts of Saddam Hussein and the apparent evil in his heirs, it is also hard to defend a “we will employ any rhetoric we can think of” as a reasoned course of action for international intervention.
The rationale is bias. It has led the West (the UK and USA) into the worst deficit crisis in history. It may have been right for the sensibilities of Tony Blair and GW Bush. But the rest of the world thinks that this intervention was handled in the worst possible way.
To have continued to use the Rule of Law would have been far more effective, than a war that has not solved the issue of Iraqi political stability.