On March 20th 2003 British and American forces were deployed to Iraq for what was to become one of the most controversial and bloody military actions of this country’s recent history. Despite nearly two million people marching through London against the war only a month before, Parliament had voted to commit British troops to the American-led invasion. We were told they had weapons of mass destruction and it was the next step in the ‘War on Terror’. And so our troops departed to waving Union Jacks and tearful national anthems. They were off to protect us and to bring freedom to a country ruled by a tyrannical dictator. In the time honoured fashion, we expected them home for Christmas.

Now six years on, with barely a ripple in the mainstream media, British military engagement in Iraq has ended. In that time the conflict has claimed the lives of 600,000 Iraqi civilians and 179 British soldiers. The country we set out to liberate is slipping further towards an all-out civil war. So now that it is all finished, those affected will start demanding answers. Why did this happen? What has it achieved?

Gordon Brown recently described the war as a success. But by what measure? The official reason we went to war with Iraq remains the intelligence that supposedly confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction. We were told that we knew where they were, what they were and how quickly they could be deployed. Despite Britain and America’s certainty on this point, UN inspectors in Iraq in 2003 were reporting co-operation from the regime and no sign of weapons. The evidence Britain supposedly had which contradicted this has never been released, explained or even confirmed. In 2004 Blair admitted that no weapons would ever be found in Iraq. By its official measure the war has been a total and abject failure.

Allegations were also made concerning the link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Even after the war, many of the insurgencies, bombings and kidnappings were blamed on al-Qaeda. All intelligence suggests that this is false. According to a British intelligence report in January 2003, there has never been such a link: "al-Qaeda and present day Iraq are ideologically conflicting" it stated. No al-Qaeda operatives have ever been found in Iraq. The insurgents aren’t fighting as part of a global network of terrorists; they are fighting against the foreign force in their homeland. The problem with regime change is that democratic progress must come from within. However odious the former leader was, invading, occupying and replacing the government of a country isn’t spreading democracy. It’s imperialism.

So if no weapons were ever found and the proof we had of their existence never confirmed, what was the motivation for the war? In the eyes of many of the critics, the real reason was formulated on June 3rd 1997. On that date a group of 25 influential Americans formed a group called ‘Project for the New American Century’ (PNAC). Among its aims were "to accept America’s unique role in extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." Essentially, the philosophy of this neo-conservative group was that the American economy is most successful when funding a war effort and that the best way to protect America’s economic interests overseas was through force. Despite persistent lobbying throughout the Clinton years, it wasn’t until George W. Bush came to power that the group gained real influence; 17 of its 25 signatories, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, took on key roles in his government. It was during his Presidency that PNAC’s philosophy became reality.

In 2000 a report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences was published by the group, stating that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." So what was this need? America wanted trading partners in the oil-rich but hostile area of the Middle East. It was time to go and create them. In May 2003, UN Security Council Resolution 148 gave control of Iraq’s oil to the UK and the US. Since then companies such as Halliburton, formerly owned by Dick Cheney, have taken multi-billion dollar contracts to export the oil.

And so this is the heart breaking truth. The British soldiers who are not coming home and the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives have died for Western economic gain. Operation Iraqi Liberation (ironically abbreviated to OIL) has not found weapons threatening global peace or brought stability or freedom to Iraq. It has however brought profit to an isolated few and suffering to many more. Regardless of what you may believe about what the true motivation for the war was, this is its objective effect.

PNAC disbanded in 2006, a spokesman stating that "it has already done it’s job… our views have been accepted." As the American military machine turns towards Iran and Pakistan, the new international order it aimed to create is becoming a reality. Next time our politicians decide to take us to war, we must look much harder to find the real reason before its too late.