The U.K. military role in Iraq ended a very long way from success.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We have concluded that the U.K. chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
In practice, the U.K.'s most consistent strategic objective in relation to Iraq was to reduce the level of its deployed forces.
As far as Iraq, the important thing is that the Taliban is gone in Afghanistan, three-quarters of the al-Qaida leadership is either dead or in jail, and we now have Saudi Arabia working with us, Pakistan working with us.
The reality is that we have missed a lot of opportunities in Iraq because of a failed policy.
We believe that government in Britain should be working to restore our reputation on the international stage after Iraq and engage better within Europe.
The U.S. spent billions of dollars to build a secular, professional national Iraqi army but failed because, despite all the U.S.-supplied guns, tanks and planes, the Iraqi military fell apart when challenged by a band of terrorists.
That was one of the great successes of removing Saddam Hussein, as we took Iraq out of the picture of having a sovereign nation from which the terrorists could operate. But this war has not gone perfectly.
There's been a lot of disappointments with the Iraqi army, no doubt about that. Some units have performed well, especially their special operations units. But a lot of their units have not.
We invaded Iraq to change a totalitarian, despotic regime, and we have been successful there.
Militarily, we succeeded in Vietnam. We won every engagement we were involved in out there.