No 10 cites Britain’s glorious recent military history as they plan for the next disaster.

When Russia launched their “special military operation” in February 2022 there were just a few voices in the Western media who were astute enough to note that there is an awkwardness in criticising Russia for their operation given that Putin’s “legal” justification was exactly the same as the one the US and UK used when they attacked Iraq in 2003. The argument in both cases is that the UN Charter permits the right of self-defence and these operations were simply extending that to include pre-emptive self-defence. Of course; the US argument about “weapons of mass destruction” was a fraud whereas Russia’s case about a potential threat from a heavily militarised Ukraine governed by anti-Russia nationalists has considerable validity. But, leaving the pragmatics aside, there is a consistency problem using a specific legal argument to justify your actions and then denying that argument to another state. The first principle of law is it has to be consistent or it is not law at all. For this reason it seems rather surprising today to find the British government’s official spokesman, (responding to some typically brash American comments about ‘random’ armies, no doubt talking about the UK’s delusional ideas about a Euro-Ukraine army) talking up the Iraq war. “The prime minister, and I think this whole country, is full of admiration for all British troops who have served, for instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom have lost their lives in the process, and have fought alongside allies, including the United States”. UK operations in Iraq are described as the epitome of nobility. In reality; an illegal war, based on “organised lying” and deliberate deception of the public by the government of the day, which led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths and far more in the chaotic aftermath. It seems odd to bring up the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan as they prepare for the next one. Which is so high in debacle potential that it won’t get off the ground, (if it does it means the UK will be fighting Russia). (As a footnote, I’ve noticed that they are already back peddling and now the French are talking about, not troops on the ground, but interventions in the air and sea. I think the idea is the US will provide an air protection zone and the British navy will patrol the waters around Crimea!).