You're the only person who keeps going on about contracts. So let's ignore that. The UK went to war to remove Saddam. He was a Bad Man who killed lots of his political opponents, invaded Kuwait and generally ran a nasty despotic government. So that's the ultimate aim - regime change. However, Saddam did, at one point, have biological weapons and ambitions to go nuclear. This is a fact. The West slapped sanctions and weapons inspections on Iraq/Saddam, which in reality actually made him get rid of all those WMDs and abandon the nuclear programme. However, US and UK intelligence agencies simply didn't believe this to be true, because Saddam was a bad man, and happily listened to people who told them that Iraq still had WMDs, but was just good at hiding them. Those claims then formed the dossiers given to Blair (plus other dodgy intelligence, none of which in hindsight should have been convincing enough). So, Blair basically kills two birds with one stone - removal of Saddam as a primary goal of regime change (yay democracy etc etc) with the bonus of WMDs being taken away as well. The latter got oversold to the public because we're all scared of somebody dropping a dirty bomb on the Home Counties and less keen on invading because there's a bad man who does things to people a long way away. So they are totally connected. Logically. Interestingly, Chilcot is also clear that Saddam could have restarted his weapons programmes and obtained fissile material for nuclear weapons within five years of sanctions ending. So Saddam may have been a toothless donkey when we invaded in 2003, but the future threat was there as long as Saddam remained in power. The obvious answer in hindsight, and as Chilcot says, is that containment could have continued instead of invasion - see North Korea. But I can understand the decision made at the time, even if I don't agree with it. EDIT: If you want to talk about the invasion of nations to enact regime change as your basis for illegality I think you might want to review your history books. Just because you think it is illegal doesn't make it so - and as I've said above, I'd willingly bet that no international, independent, court would find that war to be technically illegal. Hell, the UN agreed to it. I'd also suggest you go read something on the Chilcot report, because it's obvious you haven't. How you can sit there and claim there's no incompetence is staggering. Unless you're seriously suggesting the entire thing was a setup and this 7 year inquiry is a big plot by the illuminati to whitewash history?