I am glad to see that at least some members of the Tory front bench appear to be aghast at their leader Michael Howard's highly dubious tactics in harrying Tony Blair over the war in Iraq. The Times reported today that some Tories are questioning Howard's judgment:

'One Shadow minister called it ill-judged, while another called on the leader to decide once and for all whether Iraq was “a party political issue or a national issue”. Another questioned what good it would do the party to challenge Mr Blair over divisions between Britain and the US. “Tony Blair is damaging himself perfectly well enough without us needing to get involved,” he said. An MP close to Iain Duncan Smith, who never questioned Mr Blair’s handling of the war when he was leader, said it was becoming the hallmark of Mr Howard’s leadership to seek political advantage on any of Mr Blair’s problems, however sensitive the issue.'

Howard's view seems to be that, while the Tories' support for the war remains as strong as it ever was, it is absurd to pretend that they have no disagreements with Blair over the conduct of the war. Hence, he wrote his article in the viscerally anti-war Independent calling on Blair to criticise the US over the mistakes it has made in Iraq.

This is frankly a jaw-dropping attitude in a time of war. Of course there are disagreements within any coalition. Of course Howard is entitled to question the judgment of both the Prime Minister and the US in private conversations. Of course Blair himself is no doubt arguing with President Bush, and vice versa. But it is one thing to do this in private -- quite another to do it in public. For the effect of visible divisions within the coalition is on the one hand to demoralise our troops, and on the other to give encouragement to our enemies.

It can't be stated too often that what drives them on is the perception of our weakness. 9/11 happened because they calculated the west was decadent and therefore would have no stomach for a fight. They miscalculated about the US -- at the beginning, at least -- but got Europe dead right. Now they are no doubt watching with glee as Britain's resolve appears to be falling apart and the US too ties itself up in navel-gazing acrimony and begins to lose heart. That perception drives the violence, to exacerbate the divisions and accelerate the demoralisation that leads straight to defeat. So every time Howard attacks Blair over Iraq, the outcome is that more coalition troops will come under attack.

Yes, things are going badly in Iraq. It's therefore all the more urgent that the coalition stays united and shows it is not weakening. Things are going badly for Blair. But by using the war to try to finish him off, Howard is weakening the coalition in the most dangerous period for it so far. The war is a national issue, not a scorecard for party political advantage. This is the moment not for electoral partisanship but for statesmanship.