My Opinion about the Legacy of Tony Blair

He is definitively one of the greatest Labour leaders in British history, given that he is the first to win three successive terms, and one of the most charismatic leaders England has ever produced. Harold Wilson won three out of four elections as Labour leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Blair came into office after 18 years of Conservative rule as the new bright, dynamic leaders of the modern age in contrast to the dullness and stiffness of John Major and his Conservative predecessors like Edward Heath. Blair proved to be a very bright, very dynamic leader at the beginning; one that mirrors US President Bill Clinton, but ultimately a premiership that resembles the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

I fear that British historians would defend Blair as one of the great leaders instead of rebuking him as an intellect and thoughtful leader who blundered in the decision to invade Iraq to satisfy his personal moral ego. I say this based on my memory of A level history, which I took more than 10 years ago. At that time, British historians expect history students at all levels, as the old adage goes, to tow the line. I still remember quite vividly that my expected answer any questions relating to the 1959 general election was, if I wish to obtain a good grade, that the economic prosperity was the driving force behind the Conservative victory at the polls. I firmly believe to this day that type of answer reflects the unwillingness of British historians to issue scathing review of his leadership. I believe that the Conservative victory in the 1959 general election was the result of Labour's unconscionable and unforgivable blunder by not raising and making the failure of the Suez Crisis and the subsequent national embarrassment the issue and asking the voters whether England deserves a government of such incompetence like that under Eden and Macmillian. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to suggest that raising the Suez Crisis would result in a greater catastrophe for Labour than the one that was handed to them.

However, British historians, like those that teach at just about any British university, will tell anyone that Suez was not an issue in 1959 and Iraq was not an issue in 2005, even though political analysts will tell you Iraq was the verbally 800 pound guerrilla in the room in the 2005 election. Perhaps, historians in the future may wish to reflect on the standard by which history should judge a statesman as laid out by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the last paragraph of his book, Diplomacy: "The statesman... will be judged by history on the basis of how wisely he managed the inevitable change and, above all, how well he preserves the peace." (Kissinger, Henry - Diplomacy pg. 28)

British historians will invariably point to the successful elections and the boom in Labour's political fortunes. I have my interpretation of each of the three victorious elections, which will be vastly different from British historians. In 1997, Blair rode the wave of public discontent with John Major's Conservative government with a landslide victory of historic proportions. The general election of June 2001 was the public's support for more of the same or, more bluntly said let the good times roll. After all, the economy was prospering; world peace seemed more secure than ever, the tech boom has yet to end. Even though the dot-com bubble has burst, the tech boom was still humming, in the minds of many, to some degree and the thought of a global recession was some way off. After all, I managed to sell one of my stocks at a very good price and a price I have yet to see it return to. So, what was there not to like? The general election of 2005 was another story. Blair had joined Bush to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The British public was, well, not exactly gung ho about the war from the beginning and support was eroding faster than speed of sound. Amazingly, the Conservatives seemed to ignore there was an 800 pound guerrilla, namely the war in Iraq, that was ready to help them to victory. Instead, the Conservatives decided to let Blair write the rules of election and decide what was a legitimate topic for debate. So what was the Conservatives thinking exactly, that Blair want a debate on the war and let every party leader of the opposition rip him into a thousand bits. For the life of British historians, they will never admit that foreign policy failures play a critical role in determining the outcome of an election. If that was the case, could they explain was other factors drove the voters to return Blair to Downing Street with a significantly smaller majority? Gee whiz, this is not rocket science to figure out that the Conservatives clearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, despite winning a great many seats in the House of Commons. Had the Conservatives chose to capitalize on the unpopularity of the war, they would be in power right now and Blair would be at home looking through the classifieds.

Tony Blair entered office at a time of generally relative peace around the world. By that I mean there may be conflicts of various natures around the world, but none of these conflicts alone or cumulatively would endanger world peace to the point that we would be on the brink of World War Three. I fear that Blair leaves office under a cloud of question marks concerning regional stability, namely in Iraq and in the Middle East, and prospects for world peace. If I had to render a verdict on the premiership of Blair, I would say that, like Johnson, Blair will be remembered for dragging Britain into an unpopular war in Iraq and the subsequent quagmire; in Johnson's case, it was Vietnam. Blair's greatest achievement - peace in Northern Ireland - will be largely forgotten like what happened to Johnson's efforts to advance civil rights for the African American. I will tell you now who the people of Northern Ireland will credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, it is US President Bill Clinton and his special envoy former Senator George Mitchell. Blair may get the credit for his work in Northern Ireland some day, like Johnson will one day get the acknowledgement Johnson so richly deserve for his role in civil rights.

One Big Confession

I know Lent has already passed, but now is as good a time as any to confess that I believe in 1991 the biggest mistake former President George Bush, "Bush the Elder", ever made was not going all the way to Baghdad and ending the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. I thought letting Saddam Hussein stay in power is as stupid as letting Adolf Hitler remain Fuhrer of Germany after driving German troops out of occupied Europe at the end of World War Two. For years, I have advocated that history will not forgive the old Bush for his failure to convince the international community and, especially, the Arab World of the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein and holding him and his generals accountable for the terrible atrocities that was committed during the 6 month occupation of Kuwait.

Today, 8th May 2007, as US causalities in Iraq soars past 3,300 dead and a majority coming after President George Bush, aka "Bush the Younger" declared an end to major hostilities on the deck of an aircraft carrier. I now believe that history will remember the wisdom of Bush the Elder in not taking Baghdad and going after Saddam Hussein and his cronies. After all, retired US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Allied Forces during the Gulf War, said in his book, It Doesn't take a Hero, the United States would have been like a dinosaur in a tar pit. Keep in mind that the book was published more than a year and half after the Gulf War had concluded, Schwarzkopf believed that the United States would still be in Iraq at the time of the publication of his book had the international community pursue the course of action I had advocated at that time. The United States and her "allies", principally Australia and Britain, are still in Iraq more than four years after the fall of Baghdad and three years after the arrest of Saddam Hussein. I am thankful that Schwarzkopf's words still has a great of relevance in the modern world and to current and future historians in the examination of this war.

Everyday this situation in Iraq remains unresolved and potentially a country that could be a heaven for extremists bent on world destruction, the Administration of the elder Bush will be and should be commended and remembered as one of the great Presidents of the 20th Century and for a brilliant decision. James Baker, Secretary of State during the Presidency of the elder Bush, said that any decision to going after Saddam and his regime should be contingent on Saddam's decision to use weapons of mass destruction against Allied troops. This was clearly stated in Baker's book, The Politics of Diplomacy, and I believe that Saddam, at that time, understood that the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would have brought the full wrath of the international community upon his head. More importantly, he would be held solely accountable for the huge loss of lives on the Allied side.

Now that a policy of containment has proven to be the wiser policy compared to a policy of active regime change, Harry Truman should also be remembered for pursuing the correct course of action at the start of the Cold War until more favorable circumstances arises. A policy of regime change requires several different factors, which are clearly lacking in the current circumstances; firstly, the backing of the international community, next the willingness to put a very big army in the country one intends to occupy, lastly a lot of money. To prove this point, during World War Two, the Allies deployed at least 2 millions troops on German soil after the fall of the Nazi Reich with the Western Allies, like the United States, Britain, France and several other nations, sending at least a million soldiers to secure the Western portion of Germany with the Soviets sending a similar number to the Eastern portion, probably more to secure and set up the satellite states in Eastern Europe. That shows many countries had a vested interest in seeing the defeat of Nazi Germany and was willing to bear some of that cost in terms of manpower. The Marshall Plan amply demonstrates the need for vast amount of money. The Marshall Plan doled out US$ 12.741 billion from 1948 until 1951. I doubt President Bush can match that sum of money in today's terms given more destruction and suffering that existed.

Yikes... Murdoch wants The Wall Street Jounal

I wish to direct this entry to the shareholders and directors of General Electric and anyone who is interested in historical comparisons. Right now, it should be noted that the management of General Electric has very luckily dodged a very big bullet in the fact that the Bancroft family has rejected the $60 per share offer from NewsCorp. However, I fear that Murdoch will raise its price until it gets Dow Jones, which should frighten everyone in GE. The mere fact that NewsCorp will own Dow Jones and use Dow Jones' financial reporting skills to compete with CNBC's dominance in global finance is the sole and best reason for GE to make a move and buy out Dow Jones to ensure that no one else can have it.

If the management team of GE or any of their directors is reading this entry, I strongly urge you to consider raising a $72 per share bid for Dow Jones. You have a fundamental duty to protect your interests, in this case the dominance of CNBC in financial broadcast journalism. I admit seeing Murdoch's offer of $60 per share for Dow Jones is jaw dropping and, frankly, it is nothing short of a brilliant move on his part. Unfortunately that does not change the bottomline, the partnership between CNBC and Dow Jones is much too valuable for GE to dismiss, much less let it slip into the hands of the competition. Murdoch and its Fox News division have never made much a secret that it wishes to launch a business news channel to compete with CNBC. Given Fox News track record, it will undoubtedly take whatever steps necessary to succeed. The acquisition of Dow Jones will only boost its success.

The second compelling reason for GE to offer a 20% premium on top of NewsCorp's $60 per share bid comes from the lesson of a critical World War Two naval battle off the island of Midway. The Japanese admirals knew that there could be no security if there was an enemy aircraft carrier in the neighborhood. However, Vice Admiral Nagumo of the Japanese Carrier Fleet believed in getting attacking in one big mass attack, which took time to get organized, instead of attacking it with what he had got. Like Nagumo, GE does not have the time to get organized before making a bid. Otherwise, Jeff Immelt will be sitting on his bridge watching his preverbal ships reduced to a blazing bulk, in a similar fashion to Nagumo. Right now, Jeff Immelt could be, in this situation, US Rear Admiral Raymond Spruance, the man credited with winning the Battle of Midway leaving Mordoch to play the role of Nagumo.

Ultimately, GE's interest in Dow Jones should extend beyond protecting its current asset, namely CNBC. What I see GE benefiting from by buying Dow Jones is NBC Universal's ability to have a global news audience and expand its coverage in print, in broadcast and on the Web. Furthermore, it would represent a huge blow to Fox Business, which is a boon for CNBC.