If Britain had its own Baker report on Iraq, this is what it would say

After so deftly avoiding any Iraq inquiry at home, Tony Blair will be cursing his luck to have walked straight into one in Washington. His talks with President Bush were planned months ago: it was a ‘happy coincidence’ (as his spokesman said through gritted teeth) that it should coincide with publication of the long-awaited Baker report on Iraq. But for once, the Prime Minister is ahead of the Americans. He did not need a ten-month report to get moving: the British withdrawal has quietly begun.

The Americans were given no specific timetable for withdrawal in James Baker’s ‘which way now?’ report, but Britain’s was settled a fortnight ago. Of the four provinces under British control, the last one will be handed over to the Iraqi government in the spring. When withdrawal comes, I am told it will be total: we will not maintain so much as a garrison in Basra. When it comes to turning tail from Iraq, the US will not see Britain for dust.

To justify this, a form of doublethink is now taking root in the British government. There is the official version of events: namely, that Iraq’s army and police are growing in such numbers that we can soon hand over to them and let the country take its tentative steps towards stable democracy. Privately, however, Foreign Office and MoD officials admit that the ‘Iraqis’ to whom Britain will be handing over are Shiite militias, readying for a power struggle with each other that threatens to ignite a much wider conflagration.

As Mr Blair edges towards the departure lounge, the political mood is already turning. On Tuesday the Labour party elected as its parliamentary chairman Tony Lloyd, an anti-war rebel. He ousted Ann Clwyd, the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Iraq. As Whitehall prepares for the Brown era, officials speak with ever greater candour about how Iraq went wrong — and the problems Britain will be leaving behind.