Media Lens have done great work analysing the Guardian's output over the years, particularly their support for wars: https://www.medialens.org/?s=guardian
I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself.
Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too.
(Disclosure: I'm currently the webmaster for the site.)
It's possible that invading Canada today would turn out to be the "right course of action" but that doesn't mean we should kill a million Canadians to find out.
That said, even if you believe that removing Hussein was a worthy goal, the Iraq War was a colossal shit show.
Our wars in the middle east over the last 3 decades are objectively catastrophic failures. The liberties we have ceded, the lives lost and displaced, the destabilization of an entire region, the resources spent on the military industrial complex.... I could go on but it's abundantly clear that the negatives far outweigh any marginal benefits that may have occurred.
at which point do you think it would be more clear what the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have been? Someone born on the day of that invasion would be an adult by now so it should be possible to come to at least a few conclusions about all that death and destruction.
I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself.
Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too.
(Disclosure: I'm currently the webmaster for the site.)