It is worth noting that the archives on Afghanistan/Iraq are not open yet.

Under the 20yr rule 2001/2002 documents will be available in 2022: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/transparency/20-year-rule/

Inevitably, then, most of the commentary on these wars is going to reflect a partial reading of the material. https://twitter.com/simonakam/status/1361261971635601409

Newspaper columns, book reviews, academic articles/books and memoirs all need to be understood within that framework.

Given the fact that the archives are currently closed, what observations can we reasonably make?

First up, Con Couglin's observations about Akam's interpretation tells us the Army has successfully tilted the narrative before the release of the archive.

Second, just because academics/correspondents/columnists tell you something about the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't necessarily make it so.

People making firm conclusions need to cross-indexed against their access to the archive.

If someone hasn't had access then on what basis are they making their claims?

From interviews, recollections, diary entries made at the time, a partial reading of material someone has kept and handed over, headcam footage?

What was it?

I'm not making an argument against people writing whatever they want about these controversial wars.

But at the same time, we need to understand and cross-index the research methods employed if we're going to draw meaningful conclusions about what we're reading.