May 26, 2025: A British civil servant who specialized in police and intelligence matters produced a report on British participation in the 2003 Iraq War. The report summarized the experience of Britain in the war with what became known as the Good Operations handbook. The heart of this list was the Chilcot Checklist, consisting of items that should be considered before any future war. The material in the report was so startling in the accuracy of its revelations that publication was delayed until 2017. The British government and military were shocked by the revelations of how Britain stumbled into the war under false pretenses. The Chilcot Checklist is being used to examine how the Ukraine War started and what could have been done to avoid it. British participation was limited, providing military and economic aid. There were also 3,000 British volunteers serving with the Ukrainian forces. This was part of the 20,000 foreign volunteers who fought alongside Ukrainian troops.

The Chilcot Checklist advised nations to first determine if the war is in your national interest. Faced with a foreign crisis that could drag your country into a war, proceed carefully. Examine carefully what is going on and if it is worth the wealth and casualties you will suffer. Nations usually underestimate both of these items. Losses of wealth and personnel are always higher than anticipated. Britain ran into this as they provided aid for Ukraine. After three years British aid to Ukraine was over $400 million and growing. Hundreds of British citizens died fighting for Ukraine.

European NATO countries unexpectedly found themselves on their own in any future war. The current American president has withdrawn support. He pointed out that this is a European war that the United States has no reason to be involved with. This policy was also meant to force Europeans nations to come up with the soldiers, weapons and money needed to defend themselves. For over 70 years Europe has depended on the Americans to defend them, and let European forces grow weak and depleted. It will take years for Europe to rearm and become capable of dealing with future threats. Russian leaders have openly discussed a military solution to European threats against Russia. They believe it will take three or four years to prepare. Russia believes the Europeans will not be ready and willing to make concessions in the face of a large and well-armed Russian force.

Chilcot advised careful analysis of such a threat. Substantial forces should be assembled to deter such a threat. Failure to do this in the 1930s enabled the Nazis to overrun most of Europe in a year. Another bit of good advice was to make a clean break after a war. The Americans still have over 20,000 troops in South Korea 72 years after the war ended. Over the last few decades South Korea has become an economic and military superpower. They can defend themselves with the Americans as allies who will help out if needed.

Now European nations are considering gathering a peacekeeping force for Ukraine. If a peace deal is negotiated, European troops will be needed to guarantee it. European nations have found their forces so depleted that raising a sufficient peacekeeping force is impossible. That may change as the extent of the future Russian threat becomes obvious. The Americans point out that Britain and France have nuclear weapons and don’t need help from the U.S. in that area. If the Europeans cannot or will not defend themselves, the US will let it happen. Becoming part of a new Russian empire is not popular among Europeans so the time is now if you want to prevent such a tragedy.

John Chilcot died a year before the Ukraine War began, but his analysis of such wars turned out to be prophetic. His advice is essential reading for nations tempted to begin or get involved in any future wars. His analysis of British misadventures in the 2003 Iraq War are still meaningful.

The victory over al Qaeda in Iraq was noticed in Britain, but the lessons were not absorbed. In 2008 public opinion polls showed that 81 percent of Britons have a favorable view of the armed forces, versus 74 percent five years earlier.

For half a century, the British military has been relying on volunteers. Until the 1990s, there were few problems attracting sufficient new recruits. But after the Cold War ended in 1991, the budget cuts just kept on coming. Personnel strength was cut 40 percent, from 300,000, to 180,000. While Britain is able to barely recruit and maintain three professional military personnel per thousand Britons, the United States manages to recruit five per thousand. After the Cold War ended, the U.S. military was only cut 30 percent, from two million to 1.4 million. The U.S. and Britain both spend about the same per military personnel. That’s $387,000 a year for the U.S., and $367,000 a year for Britain. Despite that the British media manages to make it seem like British troops are being constantly starved and deprived of essential equipment. That, and the general unpopularity of the war on terror in Britain and the rest of Europe play a role. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan made it difficult to recruit. As in the U.S., multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan have not been popular, even though British troops have suffered far fewer casualties than the Americans.

Britain planned to reverse the recruiting problems by increasing pay. But this was only in the form of bonuses for those spending the most time in combat zones. Even this was a contentious issue, with Britain suffering an economic recession. Nevertheless, the increased popularity of the victorious troops helped as well. Everyone loves a winner.