i read tony blair's piece in foreign affairs titled "a battle for global values", and was really disappointed. tony blair always seemed to me to be very intelligent and eloquent (maybe it is i usually see him talking in press conferences next to bush.. or just his british accent).

it is supposed to lay out his view for what he believes is the real battle of the 21st century (i.e. a battle for the values we stand for), and that is much more than a "war on terror", but it reads more like an attempt to justify his decision regarding iraq.

in his defense of the iraq situation he sounds very much like bush, blaming the naive-peace-protesting-tree-huggers in the west for buying into the propaganda that is coming from the terrorists, calling for a "broader" perspective, and more common excuses…

he is probably right about the values issue. the west should stand for human-rights, environmental protection, individual freedoms, democracy, equal opportunities and economic development. the problem is that the west is not acting consistently according to these values (not domestically and not in foreign policy), and specifically neither bush nor blair can lead the west in such a charge. they are both tainted by the decision to invade iraq, their execution of the occupation and their stubbornness to stay the course.

blair would have done a much better service to humanity if he would have not been bush's puppy on the "war on terror". for him to now write this piece is a bit pathetic and way too late. he should just go home quietly and spare us his dogma.