In a commentary for The Independent, Oliver Miles finally popped the question - is Blair a war criminal? According to him, the upcoming inquiry on Iraq will be different from the previous ones given many unresolved questions will be asked such as whether this was 'a war of aggression and therefore a war crime?... the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida? – it seems there were no such links... [and] the civil planning for after the fighting?'

In the Telegraph, Gilligan reported 'on the secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels'. These documents include 'full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials'.

Serious doubts on Blair and his administration were being voiced especially pertaining to whether the former had knowingly mislead the Brits:

... Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002...

Or that they had rushed into the war without any due regard of safety for the soldiers:

... Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security....

These revelations aren't exactly news though they do merely confirm the nagging suspicions that most observers have on the Blair administration. Bob Woodward in his trilogy of Bush has also noted similar findings on the American administration - that Bush and his gang of crazies had absolutely no idea on how to go about invading Iraq (except a heavy military invasion on a country that has been destroyed by the first Gulf War ten years ago, further punished by UN sanctions).

Now, we can know with certainty that this war was not provoked nor a result of Hussein concealing WMD. Neither was it about international security or fighting Al Qaeda.

Such disclosures aside, the more pressing question with this saga in the UK can perhaps be summed up as such:

Can we prosecute the PMs and Presidents who have mislead the people of US, UK and Australia into the Iraq war under international legal mechanisms? Given that various activist organisations have tried (but lost the momentum or chance), would more undisclosed government documents (gradually being revealed) provide an impetus for future action? Or is the world likely to treat the invasion of Iraq as a non-issue with the passing of time and begrudgingly accept the notion that some governments do misled the public at times?