Reading what Tony Blair has to say about the Middle East really churns my stomach. It really does. It makes me nauseated. I’ll give him credit for visiting the region often and having some clue what he’s talking about, unlike so many of our armchair warriors here in the States. But Blair’s attitude is dripping with paternalistic condescension. His argument would be arrogant even if he hadn’t lost his right to his opinion. No one wants to listen to an arsonist’s advice about how to put out the fire he set ablaze.

Of course, Mr. Blair goes to some lengths to try to convince us that the Excellent Adventure he embarked on with Dick and George didn’t work out so badly after all, and that only the sectarianism of the Maliki government in Baghdad is responsible for the current instability in Iraq. He argues that the Syrian conflict was a contributor, too, by providing money and arms to radicals who gained battle experience. It’s as if Blair has forgotten the massive refugee crisis that the Iraq War created in Syria. Does he seriously think that having most of Saddam Hussein’s loyalists flee to Syria had no role in radicalizing the Sunni population there? Does he think that Iran’s increased influence in Iraq didn’t cause the Sunni Gulf States to freak out and begin arming jihadists to fight back?

Tony Blair lit the match that sparked a Holy War and now he wants to lecture us that we (and he) bear no responsibility for it.

The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven’t. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.

This is especially galling coming from a Brit. The British, after all, joined with the French to draw the borders of the Middle East that are bedeviling it now. The Sykes-Picot agreement took no heed of tribal or sectarian differences. And the rulers that were chosen to lead these new countries were picked less to represent the majority of the people than to be dependent on their colonial masters.

Western powers didn’t create the Sunni/Shi’a schism. They didn’t create the tribal system in the Arab world. They aren’t responsible for arming the Sunni insurgents that are overrunning Iraq. But they do bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis. And neglect and indifference are not among the reasons for their responsibility.

The fact is that as a result of the way these societies have developed and because Islamism of various descriptions became the focal point of opposition to oppression, the removal of the dictatorship is only the beginning not the end of the challenge. Once the regime changes, then out come pouring all the tensions – tribal, ethnic and of course above all religious; and the rebuilding of the country, with functioning institutions and systems of Government, becomes incredibly hard. The extremism de-stabilises the country, hinders the attempts at development, the sectarian divisions become even more acute and the result is the mess we see all over the region.

Mr. Blair acts as if the way the borders were drawn had no impact on “the way these societies have developed.” He acts as if creating dependent rulers given to despotism had nothing to do with “Islamism of various descriptions bec[oming] the focal point of opposition to oppression.”

Mr. Blair doesn’t mention it, but surely he can see the connection between our decision to endorse the Saudis’ jihadist model for harassing the godless Soviets in Afghanistan and the Saudis’ jihadist model for fighting the heretic Assad in Syria and the Shiite Maliki in Iraq.

The Saudis had enough money and motivation to create radicalized madrassas without Western permission. But we didn’t have to encourage them. We ought to have seen the threat to peace this would cause for the region and for ourselves.

Mr. Blair doesn’t acknowledge any responsibility for the current situation, but he does know that it is a mess.

Ok, so if it is that hard, why not stay out of it all, the current default position of the West? The answer is because the outcome of this long transition impacts us profoundly. At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.

How Mr. Blair expects us to do something without taking sides in a sectarian conflict, he doesn’t say. The troops menacing Iraq right now were funded by supposed allies in the Gulf who expect them to kill Shiites. That complicates Blair’s advice:

Where the extremists are fighting, they have to be countered hard, with force. This does not mean Western troops as in Iraq. There are masses of responses we can make short of that. But they need to know that wherever they’re engaged in terror, we will be hitting them.

Tony Blair wants us to play whack-a-mole with drones and airstrikes. Over here, we’ll strike the Sunni extremists; over there we’ll strike the Alawites. If the Iranians get out of line, we’ll strike them. Meanwhile, we’ll support the ever-shrinking group of moderates who are willing to go on the battlefield and kill not for any tribal or sectarian reason, nor out of an instinct for self-preservation, but simply to promote multiculturalism.

This is hallucinatory thinking.

Mr. Blair, put down your pen.

You’ve done enough harm.