There's a terrific post by Harry at his eponymous Place, on the impact of Blair's departure on the only issue which really matters: the fight against Islamism:

It should go without saying that I agree that it has been to Blair's great credit that in the face of rabid opposition from sections of his own party, large swathes of the media and mainstream 'Middle England' opinion, Blair has stuck firmly to support for the struggles against violent jihadism. He took the right stance over Afghanistan and Iraq and he refused to buckle for demands to take a softly pro-Hizbullah stance in the recent conflict in Lebanon.

Blair's approach has involved support for the broad position adopted by George W Bush and this has, of course, been his major crime in the eyes of mainstream opinion (I refuse anymore to refer to this as mainly a problem of the left -- the opinions of Max Hastings, Mathew Parris, Simon Jenkins, Douglas Hurd and the Foreign Office Establishment show that the mainstream right are just as guilty of getting it wrong) and it is ultimately what will be considered to have cut short his premiership.

But in the bigger picture, it is not being pro-US or pro-Bush that makes Blair right. It is the fact that he understands the nature of the Islamist threat and has an intelligent explanation of the best way to try and defeat it that makes him the most progressive of democratic leaders on this issue.

Bush has recently started to talk about the fascist or totalitarian nature of violent Islamism -- Blair has been pointing that out for years. Bush has recently started to talk about the battle of ideas and the need to challenge the ideology of Islamism -- Blair has been making that point for ages. Blair's ability to link the struggle against Islamism with the wider struggles for human liberty, economic progress and the extension of global rights, has never been properly articulated by Bush's administration. To find such arguments in the US one usually needs to search out articles by neo-conservatives -- it is not part of the regular rhetoric of the White House.

...Atlanticism is a cold-war expression and we are in a very diffent conflict now. It was essential, from a western democratic perspective, in the cold war that Western Europe and the United States spoke the same language and took a united stance against the Soviet Union. This conflict is much more complicated and the next phases may well result in Europe being more radically effected than the United States. As the memory of September 11 fades, the temptation towards American isolationism, or at least disengagement, will grow. I fear however that we in Europe will not need particularly long memories to be aware of the Islamist danger.

I don't agree with all of Harry's argument but, as ever, it's a thoughtful post which merits reading.