Legacy of Iraqi war complicates Obama's bid for action against Syria

The painful legacy of the Iraqi war has complicated US President Barack Obama's efforts to muster support for military action against Syria.

As a senator, Obama opposed the war in Iraq, and as president, he brought it to a close. But that war's end did not erase memories of the false premise on which president George W. Bush built a case for the US-led bombing campaign and ground invasion.

Ten years ago, Bush urged the American public, Congress and the international community to believe intelligence assessments that Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction - a claim later proved wrong.

Now Obama is holding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible for a reported chemical weapons attack and saying that justifies military action against the Damascus government. But there are doubts about whether the evidence is convincing.

"The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode and we need to understand the public scepticism," British Prime Minister David Cameron said during Parliament's debate that led to a stunning and unexpected refusal to endorse military action against Syria.

Cameron and Obama argue that Iraq and Syria are vastly different in both the evidence in hand and the consequences.

Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. In Syria, there is little doubt that civilians were killed by chemical weapons. The question is whether the US can pin the blame beyond doubt on Assad's government.