Is there a 'moral case' for 'regime change' - or not?

First it was about continued breaches of the UN's will. Next it was about disarmament. Then "regime change", then "pre-emptive defence", then "stopping proliferation". Two days ago it changed again to a "moral case".

In the past two years of diplomatic cat-and-mouse with Saddam Hussein, the UK's war aims against Iraq appear to have taken more twists and turns than a weapons inspector in Baghdad.

Downing Street's assertion yesterday that military action would be driven not by removing a wicked dictator but by disarmament was the latest chapter in the Government's shifting and confusing policy approach on the issue. In early 2001, when Richard Perle, the Republican ultra-hawk, used the phrase "regime change", Britain's cabinet ministers blanched. In February that year, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said: "It isn't UK policy. Regime change has not been part of UK policy so far. We'd never argue the objective of our policy should be the removal of Saddam as such."

Yet by April 2002, when Tony Blair met George Bush in Texas, the Prime Minister had clearly been won round. "If necessary, the action should be military and, again if necessary and justified, it should involve regime change," he said.

"We cannot of course intervene in every case around the world. I know that. "But where countries are engaged in the terror or WMD [weapons of mass destruction] business, we should not shirk from confronting them."

A similar shift occurred in the British line on the link between al-Qa'ida and President Saddam. Soon after 11 September, officials told journalists that the evidence did not support a link. This month, the Iraq dossier said there were links but not direct ones.

On Saturday, Mr Blair appeared to accept that the million-strong march meant he should make the moral case for war. "The moral case ... has a moral answer; it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That reason must be according to the United Nations mandate on WMD. Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is inhumane."

But yesterday No 10 was saying "leaving him there" was acceptable if President Saddam disarmed and complied with the UN. The UK's war aims, such as they are, were again as clear as mud.

Changing war aims

FEBRUARY 2001

"Regime change has not been part of UK policy. We'd never argue the objective of our policy should be the removal of Saddam." Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary

APRIL 2002

"If necessary, the action should be military and, again if necessary and justified, it should involve regime change." Tony Blair, Prime Minister

15 FEBRUARY 2003

"The moral case against war has a moral answer, it is the moral case for removing Saddam. Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. " Tony Blair

17 FEBRUARY 2003

"If Saddam Hussein co-operates, if he's serious about disarmament, then he can stay in power." The Prime Minister's official spokesman