War did not give Iraq democracy. It did not free Iraq from terrorism
Sir John Chilcot’s findings will not greatly change anyone’s perception of a war that is already widely perceived as a failure.
Much has already come out about the doctoring of intelligence, the lack of planning, the failure to equip troops.
The main rationale for the UK was to rid the world of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist.
And the state of Iraq today shows the country has neither been given democracy nor been freed from terrorism. Since then, the UK Parliament and public have been more sceptical about calls for military intervention.
The no-fly zone in Libya was a rare exception.
MPs talked about Iraq again and again when they voted against David Cameron’s call for air strikes on Syrian government targets in 2013.
Even in the fight against Islamic State, who have directly attacked European capitals, the US and UK remain wary of sending ground troops. Instead they use airstrikes – and covert special operations which, unlike conventional military action, are not overseen by parliament.
Most people in the Middle East don’t want Western military intervention either, according to opinion polls. There are exceptions: the Iraqi government asked for help to fight IS, while the Libyan and Syrian oppositions asked for Western nofly zones in the face of their own government’s brutality.
The UK is now conscious that its ability to intervene successfully is limited – but at the same time it has a responsibility to help resolve conflicts it has contributed to, such as the one in Iraq.
That means thinking much more smartly about the options beyond military intervention. This will not be easy.
Many people in Britain look at the conflicts in the Middle East and think these are ethnic and sectarian wars that have gone on forever – and therefore that Jane Kinninmont nothing can be done. But for much of history, the region’s different ethnic and sectarian groups lived together peacefully.
It is politics that drives the upsurge in conflict. As several states in the region face collapse, ordinary people are forced to live in extreme insecurity.
If they do not have a government willing to treat them as equal citizens or a government who are even able to provide basic security, they turn back to old tribal, religious or ethnic identities in desperation.
Unfortunately, in Iraq, British and American policies have contributed to the collapse of the state.
One of many examples is the dismantling of the national army. Sacked soldiers had their jobs taken away but not their weapons. For many of them, militias offered the only plausible prospect of employment. Iraq had oil to export but after years of sanctions, it had nothing else.
Today, Iraq is suffering massively from the collapse in the price of oil. It is short of money even to pay government salaries.
The government are recapturing some cities from IS but, in the process, cities are being devastated and inhabitants forced to flee the violence.
And there is no money to rebuild these places – so their populations will remain insecure, angry with the government and ripe for recruitment by radicals.
These are a few examples of the economic problems contributing to conflict and terrorism in the Middle East.
Most people in the Middle East are under 30 and more than a quarter of them are unemployed.
Britain, preoccupied with Brexit, may have limited interest in overseas economic development.
But this is one of the main ways it can make a positive contribution to a region that has been the victim of so much warfare.