The conventional view of Tony Blair is that he was a talented New Labor leader whose career was sadly overshadowed by Iraq. But this is absurd. It’s like saying that an elephant is a talented animal whose virtues are sadly overshadowed by the fact that it’s big and has a trunk.

Blair’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq grew out of the essence of who he is. Over the past decade, he has emerged as the world’s leading anti-Huntingtonian. He has become one pole in a big debate. On one side are those, represented by Samuel Huntington of Harvard, who believe humanity is riven by deep cultural divides and we should be careful about interfering in one another’s business. On the other are those like Blair, who believe the process of globalization compels us to be interdependent, and that the world will flourish only if the international community enforces shared, universal values.

errr wrong
Blair was a good Prime Minister whose party I most recently voted for 3rd May just gone.
I do not beleive Blair was wrong that we live in an interdependent world and that the international community must enforce shared, universal values. I believe Blair was wrong in the specific example of Iraq as to how to enforce those values in this case. Iraq from that point of view was bad tactics not bad strategy; using tactics to mean the practical implimentation of a broader philosophy, not the tactics of the invasion itself ie troop levels etc but the decision to invade viewed as a tactic of a geo-political philosophy.