A prominent Liberal senator has turned up the heat on the prime minister over Iraq, telling The Bulletin in an exclusive interview of his concerns about the occupation and the growing political fallout. By Paul Daley.

Throughout Australia's 3 1/2 year involvement in the invasion and attempted stabilisation of Iraq, John Howard and Alexander Downer have led the war effort confident that their colleagues were resolutely behind them.

But a prominent Liberal senator has now broken ranks.

In an interview with The Bulletin, Queensland senator Russell Trood - a respected foreign policy thinker - has openly questioned his government's progress and performance in Iraq, and whether Australia, the United States and Britain can find the right formula for success there.

While there were some waverers in cabinet before the invasion in 2003, neither Howard nor Downer has ever faced public or party room criticism about the occupying coalition's conduct in Iraq, or its exit strategy. George Bush and Tony Blair have been under fire from political colleagues, but Howard has displayed a Teflon capacity to avoid open questioning - let alone criticism - from his.

As the number of American troops killed nears 3000, and with credible estimates that Iraqi civilian fatalities are as high as 600,000, a small but growing number of government backbenchers is becoming increasingly agitated about the war and its political fallout. At the same time, Labor has sensed a deepening community concern about the conduct of the war and has sharpened its attack on the government.

There are signs, too, that the prime minister has a growing awareness of his government's vulnerability on Iraq. He has begun shifting policy, rhetorically at least, on how Australia might now extricate itself. Indeed, in a candid warning to his colleagues in the party room last week, Howard stressed the importance of taking the fight to the opposition by emphasising the dire consequences of an Australian troop withdrawal.

Unhelpfully for Howard and Downer, Trood tells The Bulletin that Australia's involvement could actually intensify divisions in Iraq. He also questions whether the invading coalition has the right strategy for victory, warns that there are now "no easy solutions" and says Australia could find itself in a protracted war of attrition that will "test the patience of public opinion".

Trood is scathing of the coalition's belief that it could achieve short-term results in Iraq and describes as "ignorant" the prevailing view that they could easily bring democracy to Iraq.

Despite these concerns, he endorses the government policy that Australia should "not just pick up and leave".

Trood - a former associate professor of international relations at Griffith University and a former visiting fellow of the Lowy Institute - is widely regarded in the Liberal Party as a "realist" on foreign policy. A self-described "Menzian Liberal", Trood - elected in 2004 and a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee - had before entering politics been openly critical about the Iraq deployment.

As an academic, he warned of the dangers of the invasion. "Without doubt," he wrote in The Australian Financial Review on March 21, 2003, "we are sailing into heavy weather."

The Bulletin asked Trood for his assessment of Australia's position today.

"Clearly progress is falling well behind expectations," he says. "Again, there are some encouraging signs - elections, formation of a government, numbers of Iraqi soldiers trained, production of oil, kids in school etc - but the sectarian violence is not abating, and may be intensifying, and there seems to be an endless supply of suicide bombers.

"We [Australia] seem to be doing very well in our provinces. But the overall direction of events is troubling and on present indications it is likely that a handover to the Iraqis will be slower than all might hope. Short of some strategic development that might break the cycle of violence - and I can't easily imagine what that might be - the conflict could well continue for some time. There are likely to be encouraging signs of Iraqi life returning to some normalcy, but they will be mixed with continuing violence.

"There is some danger that we might end up in a long war of attrition that could intensify divisions within Iraqi society, sap America's strategic energy, and not lead to a resolution that will stabilise Iraq. It may well be that a solution to the situation ... will involve participation from the key regional players and perhaps the wider international community. As yet there is no strategy to achieve this ..."

Asked if President Bush had been overly ambitious in his quest to bring freedom to Iraq, Trood says there is no compelling evidence to support the contention that Middle Eastern countries can't become democracies. But the allies had been overly ambitious about the possible rate of change, and ignorant about the region's history, culture and political realities.

Trood questions the coalition's victory strategy. "The three allies have a clearly defined policy - to try and stabilise the situation, and not to leave until they can have some confidence that the Iraqi democracy has a reasonable prospect of succeeding [by teaching] the Iraqis to fend for themselves. The logic of this policy is that we will only withdraw when the work is done. The issues are: how soon will that be and is the present policy likely to achieve that objective?

"I think it could take some time, with the danger that this might test the patience of public opinion among all three allies, especially in the US. The current strategy of the coalition of the willing is a long-haul strategy and will require commitment and patience for success."

While Howard will view Trood's comments as extremely unhelpful, there is a chance they will trigger a far more open internal government debate on an exit strategy. It would be in the government's interests to shift ahead of the US, where there is growing pressure for a more realistic withdrawal plan.

A panel led by former US secretary of state James Baker is poised to recommend that Bush seek the assistance of Syria and Iran to end the war. So far no coalition allies - including Howard - have endorsed this idea, although Trood believes "participation from the key regional players" is critical to ending the war, or at least withdrawal.

Howard is clearly beginning to reassess the deployment. He had maintained that Australian troops should stay until Iraq was a stable, secure democracy, but late last week indicated that democracy was less important than security and stability.

Labor may capitalise on Trood's decision to speak out just as it is advocating withdrawal of most of the 1400 Australian personnel. But while the senator's views symbolise growing disquiet in Liberal ranks, he is mostly on side with his leaders on staying the course.

"I am ... very strongly of the view that we should not just 'pick up and leave' - that in my view would be an abrogation of our responsibility, given that we are a party principal to events and have arguably a moral and a strategic commitment to discharge," he says.

"An independent withdrawal is neither feasible nor desirable except as part of an allied Iraqi strategy that addresses the overall situation. We could withdraw earlier than Washington as part of a general departure strategy. The important thing is that it be part of an overall plan to stabilise the country and leave the Iraqis with some chance of a democratic future."

Howard's sound political management and good fortune have ensured that he has avoided the challenge from his own ranks that Blair and Bush have been weathering. Both could, of course, advise him that what begins with a trickle can end in a flood.