IRAQ - The Moral Dimension.

Americans like to think of themselves as a moral people, a champion for good in the world. And so it comes as no surprise, in the blistering debate over the Iraq war, that all sides are invoking morality to buttress their position. In his Nov. 21 speech urging Americans to stay the course in

Iraq, Vice President Cheney invoked the "moral courage" of the nation to overcome the dangers which threaten civilization. Earlier, Rep. Murtha, the one-time hawk and new darling of the anti-war movement, cited his moral obligation to speak for the troops in his call for rapid withdrawal of US forces. Yet despite all the heated rhetoric and animosity among the different camps, there exists a common thread: a sense of responsibility over what conditions the US-led coalition leaves behind when its troops inevitably depart.

The Christian Science Monitor on Nov. 25 quoted John Arquilla, a professor of defence analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., as saying: "What all of us can agree on here in the US is that we have an ethical obligation regarding the notion of doing more good than harm and not to leave before the society is restored to at least some kind of peace and order". The manner and pacing of a withdrawal can take many forms, he said, adding: "but it certainly does not mean simply leaving and allowing the low-grade civil war to erupt into a full-blown one".

The inability of US forces to find WMD in Iraq has undercut the main rationale for invading, as did the inability to prove that Iraq was a central player in supporting global terrorism, leaving war supporters to press the democracy argument: that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who had to be removed, allowing Iraq to become a laboratory for Middle Eastern-style democracy. To some analysts, the evaporation of the chief justifications for war means the war needs a fresh start, of sorts. The Monitor quoted Larry Seaquist, a retired Navy captain and former Pentagon strategist, as saying: "To me, the only hope now is to recast the moral foundation of the invasion by getting a combination of Arab governments and a number of Western and Asian states involved - perhaps through some sort of international conference. Iraqis need to think that the foundation of the entire enterprise has been reset".

Iraqis themselves are growing increasingly determined to end the occupation. A poll conducted in August for the Iraqi Defence Ministry and leaked to the British media suggests that 82% of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops in their country; less than 1% of respondents said US-led troops had improved security there.

Some observers suggest that the moral questions raised by how the war started have little bearing on the strategic rationale for staying in Iraq. The Monitor quoted John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, "who also notes that the administration worked hard to make a legal case for going into Iraq", as saying: "One could argue there was a moral imperative to get rid of Saddam, because he's a murderous thug. The strategic rationale really doesn't have much to do with why we went in to begin with, because that's washed away. The strategic rationale now is we can't leave, because all hell would break loose, which would redound to our disadvantage strategically. There's a certain element of truth to that".

So the moral case for ridding the world of a thug - a central argument in the run-up to war - gets trumped in the event that the US leaves behind something worse. The issue of prisoner treatment, which exploded into global consciousness with stories of abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan, brought the issue of morality in warfare front and centre - and did lasting damage to the US image around the world.

Under the "just war" doctrine, a centuries-old religious framework for judging the validity of the decision to go to war and the subsequent conduct, the US failed miserably on the tenet covering "non-combatant immunity" - that is, protecting the lives of civilians and surrendered soldiers. Prof. Arquilla said: "We seem fairly callously to have violated human rights and non-combatant immunity. Our ethical way ahead lies in recapturing some of that moral high ground".

The effort by Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona to enact legislation to bar cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners in US custody, recently passed by the Senate 90-9, seeks to do that. President Bush's threat to veto the measure and an effort by Cheney to exempt CIA employees have fuelled debate over whether there are legitimate uses of torture in fighting a global war on terror. Some Americans say it is legitimate - even moral - to use such tactics after 9/11. Clearly, this debate will linger for years.