Mr Robin Cook staged a strategic retreat yesterday after calling for the return home of British troops before more of them died in "bloody and unnecessary" war in Iraq, Frank Millar reports from London
Mr Cook's explosive intervention provoked a furious reaction from former cabinet colleagues just hours after the moving scenes at RAF Brize Norton on Saturday to which the coffins of the first 10 British casualties were flown home in solemn reminder of the human cost of war and the risks faced by those in the front line.
At the same time Mr Cook's chilling forecast of the likely consequences of any siege of Baghdad highlighted renewed Labour warfare over the conflict in Iraq, and the potential for greater party divisions to come, as the Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon, acknowledged that British forces could be there for months.
Denounced by the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, for advocating "capitulation", Mr Cook - who quit the Blair cabinet in opposition to war without UN approval - denied wanting British forces withdrawn from the field of battle or Saddam Hussein "let off the hook" at this stage.
"I wasn't in favour of starting this war," Mr Cook told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend programme. "But having started this war, it's important to win it. The worst possible outcome will be one which left Saddam there."
This appeared to mark a spectacular U-turn, following his declaration in an article in the Sunday Mirror that "I have already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war. I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed."
However, while insisting he wanted Britain to "see the job through" Mr Cook renewed his warnings to Britain and the US to recognise the likely consequences if the allied forces laid siege to Baghdad.
"You can already see some of the consequences of that in Basra, which is without water, without power, where there is very serious risk of humanitarian tragedy developing there," he said.
"If we do the same within Baghdad we are going to find it very difficult afterwards achieving a relationship with the Iraqi people."
In his newspaper article Mr Cook took a side-swipe at the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, as he attacked President Bush for "sitting pretty" at Camp David - where he met Mr Blair last week - while allied forces risked death in an "unnecessary and badly planned" conflict.
In language calculated to reflect the deep-seated concerns of many Labour MPs, and the pre-war fears of many of the British public, Mr Cook said: "Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done.
"And now his marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad he does not seem to know what to do next."
With the encirclement of Basra providing a foretaste of what might be in store for the Iraqi capital, Mr Cook continued: "There is no more brutal form of warfare than siege. People go hungry. The water and power to provide the sinews of a city snap. Children die."
The use of such powerful imagery, and his defiance of the convention by which even critical politicians fall silent once troops are committed, seemed to confirm Mr Cook's availability as potential leader of Labour's anti-war party should the war in Iraq prove more protracted and costly in human terms than the British government had anticipated.