Re-defining Iraq ambitions

 

Tony Blair is adamant there will be no withdrawal of British troops from Iraq until "the job is done".

 

The trouble for the prime minister is that it is now unclear exactly what is meant by "the job" and, in any case, he is not the one defining it.

As ever with this conflict, it is Washington that is setting the agenda.

The James Baker review is considering future strategy in Iraq and pressure is growing on President Bush for a phased withdrawal of troops which would, inevitably, mean Tony Blair forced to follow suit.

It is those same issues that are now at the centre of Westminster debate, amid fears Mr Blair will not be able to hold the line against an electorally-threatened president seeking to re-define the strategy.

Foreign office minister Kim Howells has spoken publicly of the possibility of handing over security to Iraqi forces within a year.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has simply spoken of getting Iraq back on its feet.

 

Take control

And the opposition parties are calling for a Baker-style review of strategy in this country.

The prime minister is still refusing to go down either path, as he has to, simply re-stating that troop withdrawal will come only as they hand over to Iraqi security forces and that it will be a "process rather than an event".

The prime minister's official spokesman confirmed that strategy, pointing out that Tony Blair had set the course in April 2004 when he spoke of the Iraqi-isation of the country and bringing its security forces to the "capacity and capability" to take control of their own security.

 

But he also confirmed that the original aim of creating a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Iraq was also part of the job.

That second part, however, is the bit that is now under scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mrs Beckett, for example, defined success in a very different, some will say realistic way by stating: "If people imagined that Iraq would in three years become as the UK is after hundreds of years of practising democracy, that was perhaps over-optimistic.

"But for Iraq to be back on its feet with a democratically-elected government for the first time ever would be a very real achievement."

She went further, suggesting if the Iraqi's wanted to split the country into three different entities, Kurdish, Shia and Sunni, that should be up to them.

All this follows the remark by army chief, Sir Richard Dannatt that it was time to downgrade the early ambitions for the country's future.

And the commander of British troops in Basra, Major General Richard Shireff, spoke of possible withdrawal when the security situation there was "good enough".

All of this is far short of those ambitions expressed by the prime minister and President Bush in the immediate aftermath of the war.

At that time, in 2003, Mr Blair spoke of "building a stable and prosperous democracy, which will have a huge impact on the whole of the Middle East".

But things look much less optimistic now and the definition appears to be changing - in Washington if not in London.

That is clearly worrying Baghdad, with Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, urging Mr Blair not to cut and run.

And the truth is, whatever the prime minister may intend, the future of Iraq still lies in the hands of the president in Washington.