I apologize to my British friends, but I consider their former prime minister, Tony Blair, to have been Bush's enabler. Without Blair, i.e, without our closest ally, one doubts whether even the Bush administration could have proceeded with lying us into the Iraq quicksand.
I pointed out long ago ("Vietnam & Iraq: From Quagmire to Quicksand"), as did others, that we would, at best, find ourselves in exactly the same position as we did in Vietnam. Hence, it is hardly a surprise that Iraq is in the state it is.
Blair has now, however, made an extraordinary comment. He says that what has happened in Iraq now would have happened anyhow, even if we had not invaded. He claims Syria's chemical weapons show that Saddam could have made them himself... forgetting, of course, that Saddam was under strict sanctions, and Syria was under none.
Four thousand five hundred (4,500) grieving American families whose loved ones' lives were snuffed out, 42,000 wounded, with a suicide a day among the veterans, well over a trillion dollars squandered, long-term care for the sick and injured being obligated... and Iraq would be where it is without our disastrous invasion!
According to Blair, the Arab Spring would have occurred anyhow, and so would the Syrian conflagration, and that would have spilled over into Iraq, causing its disintegration.
Perhaps the Right Honourable Gentleman would explain, then, exactly what it is that we achieved by invading Iraq.
The cost we know. Tragically.