On September 14 we saw an official report into the Libyan conflict from the select committee.
It heavily criticises David Cameron (pictured) and Nicholas Sarkosy, the former French President.
This report confirms what all in the military at the time thought was an absolute mistake, and failing to learn from the debacle that was the Iraq campaign.
To my mind it was an attempt by Cameron to gain political and electoral advantage from involvement, rather than the consequences both to the troops engaged or the very people it was supposed to be helping.
His legacy from his premiership is now in tatters, if he ever had one.
He will forever be measured by his failures, which now officially include Libya.
Regime change seems to be the mantra that our current politicians live by, as a means of portraying themselves as strong and able leaders, especially when domestic issues become difficult.
Let’s not forget he also managed to get a majority of the House to back his extension of the conflict in Syria, many of which were Labour MPs, so that can be added to his failed legacy.
What these conflicts also achieve is a further draw down in the size and capability of our armed forces.
Every conflict, whatever the outcome, means that the budgets will be cut and, in addition, inappropriate equipment is purchased or commissioned that does not match our requirements.
An example of which are the two carriers that the Royal Navy cannot man or equip with aircraft.
When will we get a defence secretary who has prior military experience, and therefore awareness of what going to war means?
Major Chris Gallacher, TD VR,