AFTER what the Americans now call 9/11, using the shortest shorthand for the biggest evil, there was wide support for the war in Afghanistan. Doubts were expressed, in this column and loftier places, but the general mood was that justice was required.

Those who thought that seeking revenge and blowing up Afghanistan were not the same found themselves lost in the stampede.

Eventually the war was 'won', even if Osama Bin Laden, the main cause of it all, seemed to have escaped capture or injury. American scientists are said to be examining various bits of DNA as we speak, in the hope of proving that they've got a fragment of ex-Osama on their hands.

This was never going to be a war to win easily, hence this week's announcement that Britain is to send up to 1,700 troops to Afghanistan to continue the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida. Cynics among us (sorry, Prince Charles) may wonder if this deployment is to soften us up for more adventures with the US.

After September 11, many people said the world had changed for ever. Well, for ever is a long time, so who is to tell. America had absolute right on its side after the terrorist atrocity, but that is not to say everything America does now, and in all perpetuity, will always be right.

There has always been a danger that the terrorist attacks - a dreadful crime against humanity, the worst in living memory - would unleash the disgruntled hawks from Washington.

Suddenly, the warlike elements in President Bush's administration had an excuse to pick over the bones of past disputes. The biggest unsettled score was with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and now we are hearing a mounting rumble of the sort that comes before action.

An opinion survey for a national newspaper this week found that most British voters are opposed to Britain backing American military action against Iraq. It is true that opinion surveys are just modified guesswork, and it is equally true that the poll appeared in The Guardian, hardly a friend of military action. The headline "Voters say no to Iraq attack" was supported by the story, although only 51 per cent of those questioned had expressed this view, which is not quite the same as voters saying no.

According to the ICM poll, Labour voters were split, Tory supporters were marginally against action, while Liberal Democrat voters were by far the most hostile, with 67 per cent indicating their opposition.

This last finding is cheering news for New Labour doubters, who may feel that after years of being blurred by Blairism, it is time to give the Lib-Dems a chance.

Who knows, I might even vote for them myself, but outside of an election a vote is a floppy thing, of use to no one.

The case for joining President Bush's war on Saddam strikes me as thin. True, Saddam is an evil dictator who could harm the world. Yet the evidence for Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction seems questionable, and you can't help feeling that Bush's real reason for wanting this war lies in the business left unfinished by his father.

The case for a new attack on Iraq seems to have more to do with the war-like urgings of the American right, rather than evidence of any new evil from Saddam.

Eleven years ago, an ICM poll for The Guardian found 80 per cent support for the allied coalition using force to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The slippage suggests that Tony Blair might no longer have his finger on the national pulse, as he seems keener on joining in Bush's war than are most voters.

It's only a poll but I hope Mr Blair is paying attention.

Updated: 10:23 Thursday, March 21, 2002