War in Iraq: To Apologize or not To Apologize, That is the Issue

In light of Tony Blair's remarks on the war in Iraq this past weekend, I am interested in sparking a debate and discussion about what people think. Specifically:

1) Was it a qualified apology?

2) If you consider it an apology, do you accept/reject it? Why/why not?

3) Does the apology matter? Why/why not? To whom?

4) What do you think about the timing of the apology?

5) Do you want this apology to be followed by anything else? By what?

Tags: Blair, Invasion, Iraq, Tony, War, accountability, apology

Views: 195

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Believe Blair was making honest hindsight comments on the War in Iraq - Not an Apology but recognition Big Mistakes were made, especially disbanding the Iraq Army - chaos prevailed -civil war took hold - Shiite vs Sunni vs Kurds.  US Occupation was a Mistake (President Bush 2 should have followed example of his father In Iraq 1 War - Not occupied.  While I was against Iraq 2 War in the first place, the Scale of the Disaster was to a great extent caused by Political Mismanagement.  Blair concludes War succeeded in deposing Sadam; however, Sadam contained Iran which was and is more of a threat to the US and Middle-East-World Peace. .  

Whatever might be the catalytic factor behind Blair's apology as perceived from different quarters such as the Chicolt inquiry, Blair has demonstrated a sense of remorsefulness. But the integrity of purpose and heart underpinning his apology/remorsfulness may be questionable .However, admitting that the invasion of Iraq did not worth it in the first place is a way forward to a reconciliation.The crises in the Middle East have been attributed by some persons to be the resultant effect of the errors surrounding the invasion of Iraq, this if not all has an iota of it. Besides,the act has been done at the detriment of some persons who sincerely wait for justice to be done having lost their lost ones.Truth may tarry for a long time, but it will surely come to limelight when the time is ripe for it.


Carnegie Council

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

Democratic Candidates & Foreign Policy after Iowa, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the (incomplete) results of the Iowa Caucus putting the spotlight on Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, what do we know about their foreign policy platforms? How do they differentiate themselves from Joe Biden? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts and touches on voters' possible perception of Sanders as a "socialist" and how climate change could become an issue in this election.





© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.