Introduction

The resort to armed force against Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 was, and remains, deeply controversial. International organisations, national governments and public opinion around the world all divided over the diplomatic, political, legal and moral circumstances of the intervention, and its consequences. Was the use of armed force necessary, and had all other, non-military avenues been tried? Was the intervention legal? What were the real motives behind the intervention? Does the apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq constitute a fatal flaw in the case for the intervention? Under what circumstances or at what date should coalition forces be removed from Iraq? Has the international order, and with it the framework of international law, been undermined? Is the Middle East a more stable, or more volatile region as a result? Are the Iraqi people better off?

The conduct of military operations in Iraq has, similarly, been examined closely, and from a variety of perspectives. The operations of the US-led coalition were reported in great detail, on a day-to-day basis by journalists ‘embedded’ with coalition troops. The campaign was a vivid display of the extraordinary capabilities of Western armed forces, and their weapons and equipment featured prominently in media coverage. Operational and tactical differences between US troops and their allies (particularly the British) provoked interest from the earliest days of the conflict.