His warning came as the British government was seen risking defeat in the first substantial debate on the Iraq war since MPs narrowly supported deploying troops to joining the US-led invasion over three-and-a-half years.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Welsh Plaid Cymru were leading calls for a committee of seven senior MPs to review "the way in which the responsibilities of government were discharged in relation to Iraq" from the build-up and invasion in March 2003.

But in an amendment to the motion, the government appealed that there had already been four committees of inquiries already into various aspects related to the war and that it "declines at this time invasion" to set up an independent review panel.

At his daily briefing to domestic and foreign journalists, Blair's spokesman warned that an inquiry now would be seen by the enemy as a sign of weakness.

"Of course we continue to learn the lessons all the time and there is no doubt that at the end of our period there people will want to look back," he said.

The spokesman said that the time to deal with it "is then, not now." This, he warned, is "not a theoretical debate. It is a very real debate with very real consequences for our soldiers on the ground."
But opening the debate, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price, who has led moves to impeach Blair over the Iraq war, said the issue was "not about revisiting old ground."
"It is an urgent attempt to restore the balance of power between Parliament and the executive; and of the utmost contemporary relevance if we are to prevent such tragedies from happening again," Price said.

SNP leader Alex Salmond said the vote "offers MPs a second chance to re-establish parliamentary accountability over an executive which has led the country into a bloody quagmire."
"If this motion carries - or indeed even if it records a substantial shift in opinion since the vote which took us to war - Mr Blair's time in Downing Street will be numbered in days, not weeks or months," Salmond said.

Reports suggested that the government was facing possible defeat due to the number of anti-war Labour MPs who were likely to support calls for a review unless Blair was able to reach a compromise.

The main opposition Conservatives indicated that some kind of face-saving deal may be in the offering in its amendment, calling for the review to start within a year after an expected major withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague has said that if such an inquiry was announced, the Conservatives would abstain from the crucial vote on setting up an immediate review, by that they would put the government "under increased pressure" if not.

"A responsible government should want all possible lessons to be learned from the efforts to bring order and reconstruction to Iraq, and should not be afraid of giving these issues the most searching examination," Hague said on BBC radio.

He distanced the Conservatives continuing support for the war, saying that whatever one's view about the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq, it is "very important to learn about what's happened since then."
"Most of us supported the invasion of Iraq and many of us still consider it was the right thing to do... but this is a separate issue," the shadow foreign secretary said.

The Liberal Democrats, who have always opposed the war, also insisted that it was "entirely legitimate" to ask questions of ministers, without undermining troops' morale.

"We want to know that the government actually have a proper plan for Iraq that's got milestones, that's got benchmarks, that actually recognises we cannot be there indefinitely," the Lib Dems foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore said.

"The US authorities responded to the failure of the current strategy by initiating the Baker review. The time has come for the British government to do the same," he added.

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.

It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.

Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.

Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.

In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.

As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.

The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).

Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.

Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.

- ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)