Gordon may cut - but he won't run

On the back foot: mounting violence against British troops in Basra has forced a retreat from patrols to barracks
12 April 2012

Rarely does the Liberal Democrat leader make a statement with which many voters instinctively agree, while the other parties scurry to keep their distance. That is what Sir Menzies Campbell did when he wrote to Gordon Brown that the casualty rate in Iraq was unacceptably high and to no good purpose - and the sooner a withdrawal began, the better.

Yesterday, Gordon Brown emerged from the comforting cocoon of his summer ratings and said: no.

This news was carefully packaged for the new era in No 10 by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, whose special-ité du chef as Foreign Secretary is to set a different tone and emphasis from his old master, Tony Blair.

Britain would make its decisions about the reduction rate of our presence in southern Iraq on its own terms - and not on the US timetable, Mr Miliband said. Those bewitching words "Britain's national interest" were invoked as a tacit contrast to the "shoulder to shoulder" rhetoric of Blair-Bush.

Do not take this cry of autonomy at face value. The PM's own stated position contradicts it. He says Britain has a "commitment" to stick to - and that is only in part to the Iraqis. What is really at stake is the UK's relationship with Washington.

It all depends how you define the national interest. As Mr Brown makes clear in his reply to Sir Menzies, he will not cut and run. He might more truthfully have said that the intention is to cut, but not run.

The real position, acknowledged by senior Brown aides, is that the PM has spent much of the summer negotiating with the Bush administration about how to proceed. He does not want to face an election without a sizeable cut in British troop numbers in Basra, where the mounting violence against the British Army - 41 deaths there this year alone - has forced a retreat from patrols to barracks. The troops now provide back-up in the effort to stop internal Shia fighting flaring into a full-scale battle for the south - but not much more.

So 2008 is earmarked as the date for the big British withdrawal. The only reason it is not being done sooner is to allow President Bush one more try to make more headway in driving al Qaeda out of strongholds in the north. Of course, everyone knows these two scenarios are linked, though the mythology is preserved that Britain's decisions are taken solely on the basis of the state of play in the south.

Mr Brown has a natural affinity with the longer horizons of politics. He arrived in office confronted with a harsh choice: stick with an unpopular occupation and considerable loss of life at least for the next eight months, or fracture the transatlantic alliance by creating more instability in the south and dumping the problem back on Mr Bush's doorstep.

His refusal to do so is a key insight into Mr Brown's philosophy and positioning. It eludes many in his own party who hanker for him to be Robin Cook Mk II, shedding the preferential relationship with the US. He knows that, for all the terrible errors and miscalculations of the Iraq occupation, this is the relationship on which he still banks Britain's future as a global player. He does not share the instinctive view that the UK should - like Hugh Grant in Love, Actually - tell the President to shove his wars and go it alone.

Whether a moderate Democrat or a Republican takes the White House next year, Mr Brown's consideration that Britain does not flounce out of Iraq is vital to maintaining its role in serious international affairs. Again, this disappoints those, Left and Right, who think Britain would be better on the fence. But Mr Brown remains unconvinced.

He has one important ally. David Cameron, though he furrows his brow and calls for inquiries, does not materially disagree. Indeed, he drops into every conversation on foreign affairs that he has been twice to Afghanistan and is not about to suggest we get out of there either, despite the mounting death toll.

So when his defence spokesman Liam Fox talks of the undoubted "overstretch" in the Army and calls for an end to Government complacency, it is only fair to ask him which bit of the UK's involvement he would now sacrifice in order to address it.

Why have Mr Brown and Mr Cameron both chosen to defend such unpopular decisions when many in their own ranks and the public would cheer early withdrawal? The answer is that the Liberal Democrats can propose instant withdrawal, secure in the knowledge that they will not form the next government. Even if they are part of it, they will not determine foreign and security policy. When Mr Brown went courting them, he aimed for one senior figure in Cabinet - Lord Ashdown - who had said explicitly that he didn't favour an early exit from Iraq, nor any change in Britain's commitment to Afghanistan. "The only bloody Lib-Dem in favour of wars," remarked one Left-leaning minister to me in disgust.

Deep in the DNA of Britain and its relationship with the armed forces is the fact that we do not keep the Army simply to roam around on Salisbury Plain. That is why we tolerate a death toll other countries would not - and why our leaders still bank on the relationship with the US despite sore provocation.

The really difficult case for Messrs Brown and Cameron to answer is how they now wish to define objectives in Afghanistan which have been, to say the least, muddled and shifting since the original invasion after 9/11 - and where the lessons of neglect from Iraq are urgent.

Listening to the hours of expert opinion from the Afghanistan Select Committee, it was striking how differently many of those involved in formulating and delivering policy view the options. Mr Brown needs to put his own stamp on this mission to avoid the appearance of more drift into high casualties and uncertain objectives.

What he has done this week, though, is to disabuse the Labour Party of any hopes that he represents a major shift on foreign policy. He wants to recommit to the UK's role in the world, with less emphasis on a cosy relationship with Washington and military might but not a markedly different one when the big decisions are at stake.

I am told he has already weighed up the case for withdrawal from troublesome Helmand province - and decided against it. The PM has a longer memory than many in his own party - and outside it - when it comes to the relationship with the US. He shares his predecessor's conviction that a reliable relationship with Washington, however close, is still worth having - for all the considerable sacrifice and irritation along the way.

So expect briefings that he has insisted on doing things his way, invocations galore of the national interest, speeches suggesting a "different approach" - but no substantial move away from the US when it matters.

Perhaps a braver man than Mr Brown might act otherwise. But a wise politician with an eye for the long term would not. That is why Gordon won't do it.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in