BBC News Link Downing Street has warned of "very real consequences" for British troops in Iraq if MPs defeat the government over calls for an inquiry into the war. No 10 says an inquiry now would be seen by the enemy as a sign of weakness. But Mr Blair's official spokesman also hinted that the government might agree to an inquiry once troops have left Iraq. He said: "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. "The time to deal with that is then, not now. This is not a theoretical debate. It is a very real debate with very real consequences for our soldiers on the ground." Assuming an inquiry is a good thing (which I think it probably is) there is a logic for it occurring when all the troops are home - since it can then consider the whole event. There is also a political logic which benefits the gov/Labour Party in having an inquiry when Mr Blair is no longer in office but touring the US. I suspect this thought is actually paramount. Would there, however, really be adverse consequences on the ground if an inquiry commenced now? Would it mean that the 'enemy' would take time off from indirect fire attacks to catch up on the news about dodgy dossiers and poor kit? Would the various protagonists take succour from the amazing discovery that the whole thing was poorly conceived from start to finish and consider one last push? Would our brave boys be equally amazed and lose heart? Or is this a particularly shameless smokescreen to protect Mr Blair?