Charles Kennedy: Mr Blair isn't being straight about Iraq

Why, for example, won't the Prime Minister even admit that the Americans will run this war?

The Prime Minister says the disarmament of Iraq is a "moral" issue because Iraqis are suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Two of our most senior churchmen disagree. The heads of the Anglican and Catholic churches have expressed real doubts about the moral legitimacy of conflict and of the unpredictable humanitarian consequences. They question whether this is a just war.

The Prime Minister chose to highlight the "moral argument" on the day of the biggest political protest this country has ever seen, when at least a million people voiced their concerns about his handling of the crisis. Since then, I have been struck by the public reaction to his claims. Many people feel at best irritated, at worst downright insulted, by the insinuation that those of us who have openly questioned his approach are, apparently, well intentioned but misguided. Sotto voce, Mr Blair is suggesting we are somehow less moral than his supporters.

A contradiction lies at the heart of what the Prime Minister is saying. The so-called moral case is about regime change; yet previously Tony Blair's position has been that Iraq must get rid of its weapons of mass destruction – which is what UN resolution 1441 requires. So which is it, Prime Minister? Regime change, which sets a new and dangerous international precedent; or disarmament, which is about international peace and security?

Such confusion, with constantly shifting arguments, is undermining the Government's position. The effect is to obscure the real question – what to do about Saddam Hussein. Few people think the answer to that is nothing. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He has used chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. He is not actively assisting Hans Blix and his team in their task of disarming him. I do not underestimate the seriousness of that situation. He cannot defy the United Nations and the will of the international community indefinitely.

Whatever action is taken needs an international mandate. It is UN resolutions that have been flouted, and it is the UN that must respond. The Security Council has appointed Mr Blix as its eyes and ears in Iraq. He is training up new inspectors. He has told the Security Council he is making progress. He has several more reports planned. Obviously he should be given enough time to complete his task. In due course, the Security Council may conclude, on the basis of his recommendations, that Saddam actually cannot be disarmed except by military force; but we are not there yet.

Next week, we expect a new draft resolution to be tabled in the Security Council, and there will be a debate in Parliament. That is welcome. I have called repeatedly for Parliament also to have the chance to vote before any British troops are sent into action. It is important that the House of Commons – the elected voice of the people – has a greater part to play in this crisis. One reason why so many people marched through London last weekend was not only because they are unpersuaded by the arguments, but because they feel that the Prime Minister is not listening to them.

The issue the Government always sidesteps – because it has no answer – is why we need to rush at this. In the absence of a "smoking gun" or an international mandate, it is hard to follow the logic that says "war now" if "peace tomorrow" might be just around the corner.

The Liberal Democrats are the pro-UN party. We have never been all-out anti-war. We want Iraq to be free from Saddam and the world to be safe from weapons of mass destruction; but we don't want British troops or Iraqi civilians killed in huge numbers in an avoidable conflict. We need clarity.

Why, for example, won't Mr Blair admit that the Americans will run this war? In the House of Commons, he ducked my question about what the chain of command would be. It goes to the heart of whether the decision has already been taken that war is inevitable. The reality is that our troops in the desert are already tied into the US military machine, and the ultimate authority will clearly lie with the Americans. Why not say so?

Such prime ministerial reticence becomes yet more inexplicable when international reports are cheerfully trailing the information that a US general will assume overall control of post-conflict Iraq. Yet we hear only vague replies when we seek real information about what would happen next. If the Prime Minister doesn't want to tell the nation, he should at least be telling the troops. They need clarity about their aims and objectives from their political leaders.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has been passionate and sincere in his support of George Bush and the case for war, and it's clear that the threat of military action has been pivotal in bringing the Iraqi regime closer to compliance. But there remains a worrying dislocation between the shifting explanations being supplied from Downing Street about both the motives and the endgame. Until such doubts are properly resolved, the nation will remain sceptical.

Now the churches have intervened, I hope the Prime Minister will also think twice before again implying that those who are not yet convinced that all peaceful means have been exhausted are in some way less moral than he is.

The writer is the leader of the Liberal Democrats