WE should be used to it by now. The prime minister stands at the despatch box, radiating his personal brand of righteousness, using every trick of the trade to justify what cannot now be justified.

He defends himself against an accusation which no one makes, that he acted in bad faith. We all know that he deceived himself first. He says that he accepts the Butler report, but at the same time holds to the decision to invade Iraq; but the report finally knocks away the main argument he gave us for that decision.

We all now bring our own baggage to the argument. I have opposed the war all the way through. But I have combined this with some personal admiration for the prime minister and support for what he is attempting in Europe. But after the report, I do not see how anyone who cares for the good name of this country can support a party that he leads.

Let us look at the scene as coolly as we can. Contrary to the prime minister's assertion, the world is a more dangerous place because of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

As the House of Commons intelligence committee reported this month, there are more recruits to terrorism in the Muslim world. The United States tries to use its support for democracy as a weapon against terrorism, but in Arab countries only the much-criticized undemocratic elites support American policy.

Arabs who rely on Arab TV see the United States as the country that not only supports Israel, but copies Israel in killing Arabs and razing Arab homes without even the Israeli justification of self- defence.

Britain is regarded with less anger, but with disappointment and some pity. Arabs understand our chosen role of supporting the Untied States in public in return for private influence.

What is lacking this time is any result from that private influence. In particular we seem further away than ever from a fruitful negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

The prime minister puts more weight now on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a benefit for the Iraqi people. Given the collapse of his main argument for war, this is understandable.

When Paul Bremer first went to Iraq as proconsul, he visited the mass graves of Iraqis killed by Saddam. This was a legitimate way of reminding everyone of the cruelties of that regime. It was less legitimate to visit the same site again just before he left.

It would have been better to visit the graves say outside Fallujah of Iraqis killed during his period of office, and show some regret. We do not know how many thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion and of our failure afterwards to provide the security required of an occupying power.

We delivered Iraq from tyranny, and introduced it to insurgency and terrorism. That is not an easy equation. There may now be a turn for the better. More power has been transferred to the new Iraqi government than was once expected.

Iraqi ministers will make their own decisions about martial law and an amnesty. Ayad Allawi, the prime minister, has made a convincing start in handling his gruesome inheritance.

The result will not be a model western democracy, but if the gamble works, we might be allowed an honourable exit. Critics of the war can welcome this without relaxing their condemnation of the original decision.

One casualty of that decision has been our intelligence services. In particular, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) can be described as walking wounded - the harm as described in the Butler report is painful, but not life-threatening.

Suddenly required to divert resources to Iraq from the true terrorist threat, it found the evidence available on Iraqi capabilities and intentions was thin. Their reports, we suspected and now know, were paraded by their political masters in aid of a decision for war which they were not robust enough to justify.

Credibility has been undermined at a time when the service's work in identifying and formalizing the terrorist threats hatching across the Muslim world, from the Philippines westward to Britain, may be crucial.

The rebuilding of credibility should have been led by a new head of the SIS not identified with recent mistakes. The choice of John Scarlett may be an example of an appointment made in the modern way, with scrupulous regard for process, but a lack of underlying common sense.

Lord Butler recommends, nevertheless, that the appointment should stand. All the more important that his other recommendations for ensuring the future integrity of intelligence should be fully carried through.

But in the end the discussion must return to the prime minister. He continues to tell us how difficult he found the decision to go to war. Each time he repeats the statement I find it less compelling.

Like Anthony Eden with Suez, Tony Blair persuaded himself and led us into a military adventure based on a misreading of Middle Eastern politics and of British interests.

The outcome is different, though, because whereas Blair has subordinated himself to the US, Eden defied them. But the principle is the same. Eden resigned because of ill health; Tony Blair fortunately is in good shape.

His reputation and the reputation of British politics would be immensely enhanced if he could now find the humility and courage to draw a line under the controversy by leaving No 10. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

(The writer was foreign secretary from 1989 to 1995).