THE latest dispute over the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq is even more phoney than most Westminster rows. The issue itself is, of course, very important, life and death for those concerned. What is phoney is the way in which the argument is presented.
Talk of “flip-flops”, the new Labour strategy for attacking David Cameron, may engross the political world. But I doubt if it will make much impact on voters. The Tories made the same charge against Tony Blair after 1994 and it did not stick.
On the substance, too, differences between the Government and the Tories are narrow. The two main parties — though not the vocal “troops out” lobby — broadly agree on the conditions for withdrawal laid down by John Reid: the threat of insurgents must be reduced to a “manageable level”; Iraqi forces must be “more able” to deal with this threat themselves; local government bodies must be “effective”; and the British Government must be “confident” it can still provide support to local forces.
The key question is when. Mr Reid argues that to set a timetable in advance would be to invite chaos when what matters is the conditions being met. That position has been accepted by the Conservative leadership — though not, as yesterday’s Populus poll showed, by a 63 per cent of Tory voters. They want withdrawal as soon as possible rather than the offical position of staying until Iraq is stable (backed by 37 per cent). Tories are also more hostile to the war than other parties.
That partly reflects their dislike of “Blair’s war”.
Advertisement
There will be fewer British troops in Iraq by December than the current 8,900, not least because US Forces are certain to be cut before the mid-term elections in November.
The Liberal Democrats favour a firmer commitment to early withdrawal, though the leadership candidates disagree. Sir Menzies Campbell has called for a coherent exit strategy; Chris Huhne wants a timetable for withdrawal by the end of this year; while Simon Hughes has said that all our troops should be withdrawn by the end of 2006, working with the Iraqi Government to agree the exact timetable. So it is disingenous, if not opportunistic, of Mr Cameron to claim common ground with the Lib Dems on Iraq, even though their supporters do agree more than the leaders.
The focus on withdrawal from Iraq risks missing the significance of the increasing commitment to Afghanistan. British troops there are being increased to a peak of 5,700 over the next two years, perhaps more than will be in Iraq. Moreover, the deployment to southern Afghanistan could be highly risky.
Liam Fox, the Tory defence spokesman, has refused to give a “blank cheque” without assurances of troop protection. Curiously, given the Tories’ strong support for Nato, he has queried possible confusion over the Nato chain of command and rules of engagement, even though a British general is in charge of the Nato force.
The charges about flip-flops are about Mr Cameron’s image, not about troop levels in Iraq, and distract from the growing challenge in Afghanistan.