There are far too many people who blame the whole of the disaster in the middle east on western intervention. It's a factor of course. But even in Iraq Saddam had a prototype of al Qaeda and ISIS going: his "Return to Faith" brigades.
There's also this: imagine if in South Africa, after the overthrow of apartheid, the whites (until then the minority but in charge), had become insurgents, instead of buying into the "rainbow nation". That's Iraq. The Sunnies could have bought into the new Iraq, but decided instead to murder. It's not all down to George W.
The young fella writing this article is still at uni. He has his head screwed on, unlike all the snowflakes I keep reading about in America.
Very good article, spot on.
It is understandable for the British public to be sceptical of our role on the world stage, especially after our disastrous campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the narrative which has increasingly gained momentum amongst the left, is that we went to war for the pure sake of wanting to exploit the people of Iraq. Many also argue that we toppled a secular leader and in turn destabilised the region. If using chemical weapons on the Kurds, annexing a sovereign Kuwait, and harbouring notorious terrorists is a sign of stability, then that shows how low our expectations are of what can be tolerated in the Middle East. Saddam had also encouraged the spread of Salafi ideology in Iraq during the faith campaign of the early 90's, which laid the groundwork for the jihadist insurgency of today, and thus it is absurd to call such a man "secular." This isn't justification for the war itself or the eight-year occupation which followed, but it is merely an attempt to contextualize Blair's decision.