LONDON, Feb 21 2007 - The withdrawal of 1,600 British troops from Iraq follows military advice but also shows Tony Blair's desire to minimise the damage the conflict has caused his premiership, analysts said Wednesday.
London-based experts assessed that a scaling back of British troops in the south-east of the country was now appropriate given the increasing abilities of the Iraqi security services to police their own affairs.
Concerns over the extent to which Britain's armed forces are committed in conflicts abroad has often been expressed at home, as well as over whether they have the right tools for the job. Withdrawal will ease that pressure, they said.
Several experts sensed that it will help in Afghanistan, where Britain has about 5,600 troops as part of a NATO-led force and where a spring offensive is expected by supporters of the Taliban, the country's hardline former rulers.
"The British Army is hugely over-stretched, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is an either/or situation," Toby Dodge, from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told AFP.
"And there is a feeling that little can be done in Iraq but that it is still possible to do something in Afghanistan."
William Wallace, emeritus professor of international relations at the London School of Economics (LSE) agreed, noting the sustained fire Blair has been under since taking Britain into Iraq in March 2003.
"What we are trying to do is reduce the pressure in Iraq, so that we can concentrate much more effectively on Afghanistan.
"The British military forces are very heavily under strain at the present moment."
Richard Cobbold, the director of military think-tank the Royal United Services Institute, told AFP the decision could in part be down to a realisation that Britain's continued presence was not conducive to security on the ground.
Some British military top brass have expressed similar misgivings in recent months.
The decision would be a nod to those commanders as well as send out a signal to the British people. However, if the situation changed, the numbers were not too large to be re-deployed, Cobbold told AFP.
Other military reasons could include the growing threat the United States sees from Iran, which it accuses of covertly developing nuclear weapons under the guise of an atomic electricity programme, the analysts said.
"There is great concern that if the United States attacks Iran, British troops in Basra will be hostages of Iran," said Dodge.
"It is my understanding that (US President George W.) Bush is more determined not to let Iran proliferate on his watch... Iran will hit back where the US is more vulnerable, and that is in Iraq.
"Blair has been told in no uncertain terms by his senior military commanders that he has to do something to prevent this."
For others, Blair's decision was personal political expediency; as he prepares to leave office before September this year, opposition to the war in Iraq is still high, and has damaged the prime minister's standing in the polls.
Not to be seen to heed those calls would leave an indelible stain on how he will be remember in years to come.
George Jones, emeritus professor of government at the LSE, said Blair is still likely to be remembered for other things, such as his three unprecedented successive general election wins for the Labour Party, constitutional reform and Britain's successful economy.
But he added: "The Iraq war really has overshadowed and diminished Blair's reputation. I suspect he's hoping for his legacy to be able to bring some comfort and hope to people from this war.
"If it can be presented that he's beginning the process of bringing the troops home, it's something. But it's clutching at straws."
