It was announced this week that the families of soldiers killed in the illegal Iraq war are to bring legal action against the Chilcot Inquiry if it fails to produce its findings by the end of the year.

It may be a controversial opinion but this column’s sympathies do not primarily focus on the men and women in uniform who died, except that the loss of any human life through manufactured conflict is abhorrent.

Likewise it has long been perplexed and frustrated at the fact that when any member of the armed forces dies, they are automatically “a hero.”

The obvious implication is that by merely donning a khaki outfit one becomes impervious to criticism if unfortunately not bullets.

Were the thugs who tortured Baha Mousa and countless others to death heroes? I think not.

The claim that these are merely bad apples has been wheeled out for decades — if not centuries — in attempts to mitigate incidents of appalling brutality so outrageous they could not be covered up with a flurry of D-notices and a rigged investigation.

From India to Cyprus to Greece to Aden, via Kenya and Northern Ireland all the way to Afghanistan and Iraq the British military has committed countless atrocities mainly against unarmed civilians.

Soldiers are by definition trained to kill and the system of training they undergo inures them to casual brutality and deliberately and methodically strips them of their humanity.

Yet each and every one is a “hero,” we are informed. Doubtless some soldiers do conduct themselves with honour, integrity, bravery and compassion. But many do not.

The further question is raised as whether this blanket heroism has a cut-off point. After all generals sitting hundreds of miles from what they describe as “the action” also wear uniforms, it is just that theirs have more bits of braid and shiny buttons.

Are they, who send young men and women to kill other young men and women who they have never met and have no cause to hate, “heroes?”

And what about the politicians who are even further detached from and yet entirely instrumental in the carnage and slaughter?

Thatcher was hailed the hero of the Falklands, which was basically a war over sheep.

And every Prime Minister since has sought to attain a similar reputation as a great wartime leader in the Churchillian style.

They don’t care who they bomb just as long as they’re killing someone, somewhere in the name of good old Blighty and Britannia.

The interminable delays in Chilcot have been scandalous and the families of those who died — both civilian and military — have every right to demand closure over the death of a loved one in an illegal war.

The stick frequently used to beat those seeking the truth via a public inquiry is to point to the length and expense of the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

Yes, the inquiry lasted for years and cost millions, but what is seldom if ever pointed out is that every single delay to the inquiry was as a direct result of the British government. What’s more if the 1972 Widgery “inquiry” had not been such a blatantly disgusting and cynical whitewash there would have been no need for Saville in the first place. The families of those murdered had to wait nearly 40 years for justice. It wasn’t them delaying the proceedings I can assure you.

Likewise it can be taken as read that the blame for the majority of delays with Chilcot can be laid squarely at the door of Whitehall and Anthony Lynton Blair Esquire who sought to thwart its working at every turn.

In another obvious parallel it should be pointed out that if the Butler and Hutton Inquiries had not had a brief more usually associated with washing powder things might have been resolved somewhat earlier.

This column has little optimism that Chilcot will produce the kind of damning report that Saville did.

The so-called ongoing “Maxwellisation” process is proof of that. A process that allows Blair, Straw and their fellow war criminals to see the criticisms of them and therefore get their lies in order before the report is even published is as absurd as it is scandalous.

Except of course that sadly this is not a trial.

In a very real sense I, like millions of others, do not need Chilcot to tell me the truth about what happened.

Was the war illegal? Yes.

Was evidence manipulated and manufactured to advance the case for invasion? Undoubtedly.

Did the case for war shift to one of regime change, illegal under international law? Unequivocally.

Tony Blair may seriously believe that he made the world a better place in 2003 — after all he’ll happily tell anyone anything that will further his agenda, so there’s no reason to assume he’s any different when it comes to himself.

The Chilcot inquiry may exonerate him, history will not.