IT was entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to visit Iraq and acknowledge our debt of gratitude to members of the British armed forces.

Amid the concerns about terrorist attacks, British soldiers continue to make progress in the herculean task to restore some sort of political and economic order following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Whatever criticism there is about the decision to go to war in the first place, there is no criticism of the professionalism and achievements of our troops on duty in Iraq.

However, in his insistence that the war was in "a noble and good cause" Mr Blair is coming out with a retrospective justification for sending our forces into war.

He is, of course, right that Iraq and the rest of the world are better off with Saddam Hussein out of power and in custody.

And he may be right that Libya's promise to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and Iran's willingness to accept inspection teams are the direct result of the decisive action taken against Iraq.

But these were not the reasons Mr Blair gave for going to war last year.

Sadly for Mr Blair, his justification for war was not regime change, but to eradicate the threat of Saddam Hussein's supposed development and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

The toppling of Saddam Hussein, the acquiescence of Colonel Gaddafi and the concessions of Ayatollah Khamenei can not mask the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

And that is a point which will be reinforced when Lord Hutton's report into the death of Dr David Kelly is published this month.

While we fully understand Mr Blair's wish to emphasise the positive aspects arising from the conflict in Iraq, they do not answer the question of whether we went to war under false pretences.

Mr Blair may prefer to concentrate on the future, but it is a fact of political life that, for all the photo opportunities in Basra, the past will continue to haunt him.