BLAIR'S TRAGEDY

Why has Tony Blair acted as he has over Iraq? I have little concrete evidence for what I write here - it's what I can glean from the facts, as we now know them, and the character of Mr Blair, as far as we can discern any consistency in it.

You can only understand Blair's actions if you understand that people, all people, have "mixed motives". His priority was to do the best thing for Britain in the long term - it was probably a matter of personal vanity too since he knows that history will judge him in terms of the long-term consequences of his decisions; in the end, can we be sure? Don't we often present slightly selfish decisions to others, and even to ourselves, in a favourable light? It's the essence of 'spin', and that's been at the heart of this administration from the beginning. Let's hope God accepts the spun version!

What is clear, and public, is that he decided to adhere to the so-called 'special relationship', in doing so following a consistent strand in UK foreign policy. He thought that the best idea would be to be on the side of the most powerful player in the apparently dangerous new world situation and at the same time to use this, as he thought, perhaps naively, to exert leverage on Bush to reopen negotiations in the Middle East. This decision, in principle to support an invasion of Iraq, was taken days after 9/11, we now know. Blair almost certainly thought long and hard about it, consulted his conscience in the little time he had (hours? days?) then committed. He also seems to have made some effort to bargain at this point and at various other stages along the road to war, though it's clear he had very little influence over the US. After that initial commitment, there was no return - he has had to be disingenuous, and actually to lie, in order to make things happen the way the US wanted. This inconvenience occurred because the UK Parliament has to agree to a war, and we still have our own foreign policy. A more honourable man would have resigned.

A real opportunity for global dialogue post 9/11 was thrown away, there have been thousands of deaths, and the situation in Iraq is a disaster. It may have been better to follow the EU line, as many people advised at the time. All this is debatable, and beside the point here. The point is that anyone who thinks this sits easily with Blair's conscience misreads the man.

He will not be forgiven for not talking to war victims' families. Of course, he would have to tell them that he was prepared to throw away their loved ones' lives to help maintain an important alliance, and probably he should be prepared to do so. It's the least he owes them, though the scenes of confrontation would be simply heartbreaking for all concerned. As for what it has done in terms of tarnishing his political reputation, destroying his popularity, and ruining his ambitions for achieving a more just social settlement in Britain, this is Blair's personal tragedy, a fate which should not be enviable in anyone's eyes, despite his material comforts. These are things that probably keep him awake at night, things that cannot be shared with Michael Parkinson, or with anyone apart from his closest friends for years to come.

Trying to make good decisions as PM, let alone ones that you can also square with your conscience, can't be easy. Blair's belief about God's judging him is sincere, but someone should have told him a long time ago that politics and religion do not, cannot, mix. It should be obvious that someone of a genuinely religious persuasion (i.e. who wants to live according to Christian or any ethical precepts) ought not to be doing a job that requires many decisions to be taken according to utterly different principles. It is these, rather than his religious faith, that Blair has followed to the best of his judgement and history may yet absolve him, as it usually does with realpolitik, as we move into an era defined by political instability and an uncertain oil supply.