'We can't just turn our backs on Iraq'

THERE can't be many Iraqis who have the luxury of writing stories. After four years of conflict and a dictator deposed, the lack of infrastructure - electricity supplies, clean water, intact buildings - and violence is part of daily life in some parts of the country.

But along with yesterday's announcement that 1,600 troops are to return from Iraq, comes the reasoning from Tony Blair that it is time for Iraqis - in Basra at least - to "write the next chapter" of their history.

The 7,100 British troops will be cut to 5,500 in the next few months with the expectation that most will be home by the end of next year.

But as news reports of car bombs and insurgency continue to come out of the country, many will be asking what has changed to spark such a significant withdrawal of troops. Why now?

From the Government's perspective, there has been a growing sense that the number of soldiers on the streets of Basra - a predominantly British-patrolled area - have become increasingly unnecessary and even inflammatory.

Military commanders say they have also been encouraged by growing evidence that the Iraqi army and police are now in a position to maintain order in southern Iraq. To illustrate their confidence, an Iraqi army division based in Basra - trained by British troops and until now under British control - will now take orders from Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad. It comes after the part played by Iraqi forces in Operation Sinbad - the campaign to root out criminals and supporters of Shia militia within the Basra police force.

The Government emphasises the differences between Basra and Baghdad, where the majority of American troops are deployed. Up to 80 per cent of Iraq's violence is said to take place within a 30 mile radius of Baghdad, with the deadliest between Iraq's two main Arab communities, the Sunni and the Shia Muslims. Basra is considered the more peaceful with sectarian violence falling.

But to the Government's opponents, while there maybe a more peaceful future for Basra, this doesn't mean that Iraq is anywhere near stable.

"The unpalatable truth is that we will leave behind a country on the brink of civil war, where reconstruction has stalled, where corruption is endemic and that is a lot less stable than it was in 2003," says Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat leader.

"This is a long way short of the beacon of democracy for the Middle East which was promised some four years ago."

According to Dr Richard Jones, a research fellow at the Post War Reconstruction and Development Unit at York University, the problems we are seeing in Iraq now are partially rooted in a perceived lack of visible improvements for the average Iraqi.

'This is in terms of employment, in terms of infrastructure, basic needs such as electricity and water," he says. "I think people feel they had more reliable stability under Saddam Hussein than they do now so telling the people of Baghdad that things are better rings a bit hollow.

"The only way troops can pull out is to make sure they leave something behind which is sustainable - addressing basic human rights needs, some kind of judiciary process where there's a recourse to justice - and that takes time. There have been significant improvements to some areas of Basra, particularly work done with the provincial reconstruction teams such as electricity and irrigation, but in Baghdad there's a huge sectarian problem. If troops left Baghdad now it would be a real betrayal."

In Dr Jones's view, the problems in Iraq stem from a lack of post-war vision between the US and Britain.

"The first thing they did was to get rid of all the Baa'thist elements (Saddam Hussein's former party). But then the security collapsed. The army was immediately disbanded and police force was substantially pruned. Part of the result of that has been complete chaos.

"George Bush gave the impression that the vision was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and there was a lot of excessive optimism that everything would be okay after that. But that hasn't been the case. Arguably, the country is in a lot worse state now than it was under Saddam.

"But in a lot of post-war countries, the real moves are dictated from afar. Not from the ground, no matter how badly things are going, but from London and Washington."

And therein lies another possible reason for the withdrawal of troops. The war in Iraq has become a political albatross for both the American and British governments. Bringing British soldiers home speaks volumes about the relationship between Blair and Bush, where Blair was once seen as Bush's poodle.

In America, George Bush has staked what's left of his political career on the move, announced last month, to send a further 21,500 troops into Baghdad, taking the total number of US forces to 153,000. But he is becoming increasingly isolated in Washington.

According to a recent poll, three quarters of American people believe the war has been a tragic mistake and the resurgence of the Democrats - who now control the Senate and the House of Representatives - has been largely pinned to President Bush's handling of Iraq.

Now, in joining 18 other countries which have withdrawn troops or who are planning to do so, British redeployment is been viewed as a rejection of Bush's high-risk "surge" strategy. The poodle has turned.

"It means Blair moves away from the image of him being bound to whatever the US is doing," says Dr Kyle Grayson, lecturer in international politics at Newcastle University. "But for the neo-Conservatives in Washington, this is going to be perceived as a slap in the face."

The move could also be viewed as an attempt to rehabilitate Blair's image following his own handling of Iraq.

"I don't expect to see British troops in Iraq by the next election," says Dr Grayson. "The person who will probably benefit most from this is Gordon Brown."

While he acknowledges the Government has done some positive work in Iraq, the success of the withdrawal will be measured on whether the Iraqis can hold Basra on their own. It's unlikely that the Government will be sending troops back to the country if violence flares.

So, what are the options for Iraq's future? Last year, America's independent Iraq Study Group recommended that the US should seek Iranian and Syrian support in stabilising Iraq. But there appears little chance that Bush will negotiate with the countries and only last week he accused the Iranians of supplying weapons to militants in Iraq.

Either way, Dr Barry Gills, professor of global politics at Newcastle University, says that neither America or Britain can simply walk away.

"That would be shameful," he says. "We need to think of a different strategy and, in that sense, withdrawal of troops is a move in the right direction. But we have a responsibility and we can't just turn our backs on Iraq and say 'ah well, we're leaving, we don't know what happens next'."

"We need a vigorous diplomatic effort to get all parties around the table and we can't do that with a military approach."

It is likely to take a long time before the Iraqis start writing their next chapter without blood on the pages. And Britain may be committed for a long time yet.

"There has to be an emphasis on building the capacity for people to run their own parliament or to turn things over to the army and the police force, and this takes time," says Dr Jones. "My message is it's not going to happen overnight."