No sniggering at the back there!
What I am suggesting in all seriousness is that Tony Blair may have guaranteed that it will be impossible for the United Kingdom to wage war again without the specific authority of the UN. After all how could any Prime Minister stand up in the House in the future and claim he had irrefutable evidence that [insert county here] had weapons and the intent to attack the UK or its interests?
Before we all get excited about having an army like Costa Rica's, there would still be a role for them in peacekeeping/making duties and humanitarian relief. But the position does beg the question as to whether the British should spend billions replacing the aging Trident submarine fleet so that "five times a night" Blair can brag about the sixe of his.....arsenal.
Of course the military/industial complex in the USA is far too entrenched to allow anything like that pass so easily. On the other hand, the "fast light quick" Armed Forces envisaged by the neocons has proved to be a non-starter. There is clearly no way there will be a military "win" in Iraq. At best there will be a Vietnam style pull-out but leaving behind a vaguely friendly government. The US Army has been unable to win two "asymetrical" wars. Defense of the mainland USA is in jeopardy as there are virtually no reserve forces available to fight a furthe major operation. Anyway, would you really want to stop the Mexicans taking back Texas?