A victory parade through the streets of London for British troops returning from the Gulf would be an obscenity.

It would diminish the relevance of a spectacle that should be reserved only for a time of national thanksgiving, a time when the nation has been saved from catastrophe and our armies have returned home as heroes.

The end of the five years of fighting in the Second World War was such an occasion.

The conflict in Iraq most certainly was not.

I had no quarrel with Britain's involvement but it was an invasion that could only ever have had one outcome.

The overwhelming firepower and technology of the coalition forces made certain of that.

So did the courage and professionalism of our fighting men and women.

We can be proud they did the job they were trained for, quickly and efficiently, even though Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found and the Iraqis have yet to show they can create some kind of democracy.

We must also be thankful so few lost their lives, though that is no consolation to the families of those who were killed.

However, none of this adds up to a reason for the symbolism or the raw emotions released by a victory parade through our capital city.

What happened in Iraq was a job well done by an unstoppable fighting force.

It is not often I find myself at one with the thoughts of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but on this occasion we seem to have a measure of agreement.

He is unwilling to conduct a thanksgiving service for the end of the war because of the triumphalist nature of such a ceremony. He does not want to take part in a national religious event that could be criticised for praising conflict.

There is unlikely to be any kind of post-war ceremonial for some time, certainly not before all our people have returned from Iraq.

But Dr Williams may eventually lead a service which would focus on remembering those who died rather than celebrating victory in battle.

Whatever Dr Williams or anyone else feels, Downing Street is determined to have a party.

It would be inconceivable for the Prime Minister to give up such a heaven-sent opportunity to wear his glowing halo again.

Mr Blair has already said it would be extraordinary if he were to ignore what has happened and has promised a "major celebration".

He said the Government would acknowledge "the huge contribution of the troops, their sacrifice and the pride the country felt in them".

He conveniently forgets all those both inside Parliament and in the country who were against the war - an opposition so large it almost brought about his and his Foreign Secretary's resignations.

But given the vengeful nature of politics today, could Mr Blair possibly resist the opportunity to have such a triumphalist light shine on him?