News Roundup

It emerged too that the British government's legal position may not be watertight. Ministers say that if a second resolution is tabled and lost, the legal position is that they can go to war under the earlier UN resolution 1441, which demanded that Saddam Hussein give up his weapons or face serious consequences.

But there was a suggestion last night that the government has been told it is not as simple as that. Any second resolution that fell would mean that Britain would have to go to war in breach of international law. This could have serious consequences for the government and the armed forces.

MPs sceptical of Tony Blair's hardline stance want to see Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith's advice about taking military action without a new United Nations resolution. Lord Goldsmith held talks with the Prime Minister on Monday afternoon and there is speculation he has doubts about the war and could even resign.

Discussing the legality of a war without UN sanction, Alan Boyle, a professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh said: "It is as plain as a pikestaff that any invasion of Iraq without a further Security Council resolution would be illegal. The UN charter is quite clear that states should settle their differences peacefully, and the use of force is prohibited except in two circumstances - in cases of self defence and in cases where authority has been granted by the UN Security Council.”

.

A secret report from the US state department pours cold water on the "domino" theory of democratic change in the Arab world - the idea, promoted by Bush administration hawks, that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq could set off a flourishing of democracy throughout the region.

Huge economic and social obstacles would make political change "difficult to achieve for a very long time", the report says, casting doubt on one of the key justifications President George Bush has cited for an attack on Iraq.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," and even if electoral systems were introduced, anti-American feeling runs so strong that they could well elect radical Islamic governments hostile to Washington, according to the report, which was leaked to the Los Angeles Times.

A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war.

Retired Colonel Mike Turner, who also served as military planner with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the Bush administration is ignoring potential risks – some that could cost the US dearly.

"There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behaviour can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future," he said.

"So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four iron-clad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war.

"In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply 'Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower."

A law suit is being brought by several members of the US Congress and a few active-duty members of the American Armed Forces, seeking an order from the courts preventing the White House and Pentagon from starting a war with Iraq. The plaintiffs argue that Congress never legitimately gave the President the authority to conduct a war.