LONDON: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to turn a page on Iraq by pulling out troops controversially sent in by his predecessor Tony Blair, but his hands are tied politically, experts say.

Brown has increasingly put the focus on Afghanistan since succeeding Blair last year, repeatedly warning that fighting the Taliban is now the frontline in the US-led “war on terror” triggered by the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.

In the run-up to Brown taking over from Blair in June last year, anti-war campaigners including those within the governing Labour Party were buoyed by his admission that “mistakes” were made in post-war planning in Iraq.

They were encouraged further when he appointed a number of Iraq war critics to his cabinet inner circle and detected a cooler, more businesslike approach to relations with the United States when he first met President George Bush.

But there is disappointment that despite a change at the top, a radical change of direction has not materialised.

“It seems to me in every respect that they are following in Blair’s footsteps,” the convener of the Stop the War Coalition umbrella group, Lindsey German said. “Gordon Brown, I’m afraid, has not distinguished himself.” Brown, who as Blair’s finance minister was reportedly unhappy about supporting invasion, was given an early taste of the conflict: a soldier from his own parliamentary constituency was killed in Iraq a day after he took over.

He has since faced similar pressures to his predecessor over mounting British casualties and fatalities, plus concern over supply of equipment, medical care for injured troops and the spiralling cost of operations.

But analysts say any attempt by Brown to change perceptions, including by cutting troop numbers from the current 4,100 to 2,500 in the coming months and switching the focus to Afghanistan, has had little effect on military strategy.

Rosemary Hollis, director of research at the Chatham House foreign affairs think-tank in London, believes Brown has his hands tied.

“Brown does want it to be yesterday’s story now that Blair has gone, that the Iraq chapter in terms of Labour Party politics is now shelved,” she said. “But there’s a limit to how much he can spin it that way.

“How do you close that book and say, ‘that was Blair’ when it’s still an ongoing story and whether it’s going to work or not is up in the air and what the Americans are going to do is still not clear?

“In terms of practicality, the policy was not one that he could radically change anyway. And in terms of the reality, it’s not available as an episode that can be closed.” For Paul Smyth, operational studies head at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) military think-tank, Britain was always going to have to be responsible for security until the Iraqis were able to do so themselves.

Troop reduction and “overwatch”, the current phase in which British troops based at Basra airport just outside the southern Iraqi port city are training local security services, are part of that strategy.

With the Iraqi National Army still lacking in logistics, intelligence and equipment, a British presence will be required there “for the foreseeable future”, he added.

For Smyth, a former British Royal Air Force pilot, his colleague Christopher Pang, who heads RUSI’s Middle East and North Africa programme, and Hollis, Afghanistan has taken over as Britain’s main concern.

“The war in Afghanistan is perceived as one that’s actually winnable,” said Pang, while Hollis said both Blair and Brown would have had to make the same decision to draw-down troops in Iraq and boost numbers in Afghanistan.

“Although there’s an enormous distance to go in Iraq, we have gone past the worst of it,” said Smyth. “From the UK point of view the elephant in the room is Afghanistan, not Iraq.—AFP