HERE'S a moral dilemma of the moment: should those who oppose the war against Iraq support "our boys" now the conflict is under way? Well, I'd say that depends on what is meant by "support".

No one, not even the hardiest follower of the Not In Our Name camp, can surely wish anything but the safest possible outcome for Britain's troops. Now that the war is happening, it is natural to wish our servicemen and women well - while also praying they don't get to kill too many people.

The latest opinion polls show a surge in support for the war, with 54 per cent backing action, according to an ICM poll. Opposition is still strong, with 30 per cent of adults totally against the war - a higher figure of dissent than for any other conflict since 1950. But there is a switch, even if some of the acquiescence may be grudging.

At such gloomy times, it is worth distinguishing between supporting our troops and backing what they do. Throughout history, troops have been supported at home while being sent blindly towards slaughter. So often wars have been manipulated by politicians, organised by generals and fought by the poor sods on the ground.

The First World War remains the inescapable example of this terrible tendency. Earl Haig, commander in chief of the British forces in France, organised a war of attrition at the Somme. This saw 420,000 British casualties in the space of four months for almost imperceptible gain. He sanctioned this murderous loss for the sake of a grand plan, maybe forgetting that those splodges of colour on his maps represented human beings.

It has always been a source of pride to me that my grandfather, Bill Cole, was a stretcher-bearer in that long-ago war; as a religious man, he refused to fight, but instead attempted to save lives amid the blood and the mud.

Haig is long gone, thank God - but still wars are fought for reasons of political convenience; ordinary soldiers are still at risk, alongside the civilians of wherever they are invading at their leaders' behest.

The veteran US Congressman Robert Byrd, 85, said last week in denunciation of his country's march to war: "We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice."

It is worth remembering that the troops taking part had no choice - other than by not joining up in the first place.

To the surprise of many, including this columnist, the Iraqi war is being conducted with apparent care, at least in the sense that there has been limited mass destruction from the air. Instead, there seems to be an attempt to keep Iraqi casualties as low as possible. But we are only a week in and who knows what bloody consequences lie ahead. I heard on the radio that the death toll so far was 500, but this is hard to confirm amid the fog of statistics and ballistics.

ON the home front, I can't confess to much excitement over the latest painting heading to York Art Gallery. The portrait is by the 18th century Scottish artist Allan Ramsay - well, I say the, but the name sadly meant nothing - and shows an aristocrat called Jean Abercromby.

Oh, that's just what York's art gallery needs - another dull picture. And all for £625,000. Apparently, assorted grants stopped the painting from going abroad. That seems hasty. Surely abroad would have been welcome to yet another representation of a long-dead aristocrat.

As for the gallery, well I hate to say this, but what a generally uninspiring place this is. Surely the money would have been better spent on smartening it up, installing a caf and stepping into the new century.

Updated: 10:38 Thursday, March 27, 2003