Alan Watkins: Brown feels his way to an Iraq withdrawal

It used to be an article of doctrine among political analysts that foreign policy did not shift many votes. This may or may not be so: I am inclined to think that it is less true than it was. But foreign affairs have undoubtedly affected the fates of individual prime ministers.

David Lloyd George fell because he backed Greece against Turkey in the aftermath of the First World War. Neville Chamberlain was got rid of because he failed to prosecute the Second World War with sufficient vigour: just as HH Asquith was jettisoned in the previous conflict for the same reason. Anthony Eden had to go because of Suez and its accompanying medical problems. And Margaret Thatcher was brought down partly by Europe and partly by the poll tax.

In this list, Mr Tony Blair is at the top, there or thereabouts. The process took a long time, six years if you include the invasion of Afghanistan. What happened was that Mr Blair chose to follow Mr George Bush in an action of petulant revenge-seeking, when the criminals involved had come mostly from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For reasons which continue to elude me, the Afghan war was fought – is still being fought – on alleged principles both of political virtue and of national interest. Indeed, Mr David Miliband was proclaiming as much at the top of his voice in last week's Spectator. The Labour Party was prepared to accept Afghanistan as a virtuous war, even a liberal war: a position which has been maintained to this day.

The party was not prepared to view the Iraq war in quite the same way, even if a clear majority of the parliamentary party, including several representatives of the socialist conscience, felt able to send the troops on their path. At the same time, they felt rather ashamed of themselves.

This was only to be expected. It was natural enough. In 2004, several colleagues attended on Mr Blair and told him that his time was limited. Mr Blair informed them that he would serve only one more full term, which could have taken him to 2010 or, if he had delayed the election till 2006, to 2011, which was absurd.

Though Mr Blair's friends tell us that his preferred year of departure was 2008, he could easily have carried on for longer. Some other question would have arisen to demand his prolonged attention. Paradoxically, perhaps, what brought about his fall was not his activity – for he had always embraced activity for its own sake – but his inaction.

The peasants' revolt of September 2006 was brought about by the war in Lebanon. For once, Mr Blair had refused all calls to activity. Mr Bush had certainly refused them. And who was Mr Blair to argue with Mr Bush? Just as the course of the First World War was settled by railway timetables (or so the historians tell us), the future of Mr Blair was resolved by emails and other forms of electronic communication.

There was another factor. This was the new 2005 intake. They had not voted for the war, as most of their predecessors had done in 2003. If they had been asked, as some of them had been, retrospectively, they would have replied that they would not have put up with any such nonsense for a single minute.

Mr Gordon Brown is in a delicate position. After all, he supported the war. At any rate, he voted for it. Admittedly he did not say much about it at the time or, indeed, subsequently, except for uttering a monosyllabic "Yes" when asked about whether he had supported the war.

Mr Brown, as Chancellor, could probably have stopped the operation in an afternoon if he had refused his consent. Harold Macmillan did similarly over Suez in 1956, though he was enthusiastic to begin with, and turned around when the Americans put pressure on the pound.

Over Iraq, by contrast, it was the Americans who were doing the leading. Mr Brown could have tried to head a coup himself in 2003 or retired to the back benches, where he might or might not have returned to lead the Labour Party. As things turned out, Mr Brown adopted the prudent even though inglorious course.

He says he will make a statement in October, when Parliament reassembles.

Whatever happened, by the way, to the proposal (I think it came originally from the late Robin Cook) to reassemble in early September, with a break for the party conference season? It seems to have disappeared without trace. Certainly the period between now and October is a long time to wait for Mr Brown to make up his mind about troops in Iraq.

So far, Mr Brown has proved himself adept at purveying reassurance. He has a reassuring suit and a reassuring tie. He even has a reassuring Home Secretary in the form of Ms Jacqui Smith. And Mr Alistair Darling would no doubt be reassuring too, if only we knew what he was up to all day long.

There are some on the Left who imagine that Mr Brown's accession marks a completely new start, comparable to that of Mr Blair in 1997: except, of course, that it was not a new start at all, but a continuation of the policies of the previous decades by other means or, in many cases, by exactly the same means, notably by appointed committees or by irresponsible commercial organisations. As the paladin of the Public Finance Initiative, he is unlikely to want to disturb the comfortable arrangements of the last few decades.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, he is more likely to do what his party wants. He can stay in Afghanistan, for the moment, at any rate, because his party is prepared to put up with it. It can persuade its own that it is treading the paths of virtue. Mr Brown may even be prepared to go off for a frolic of his own in Africa.

But this is not to stage a fight between old, real or original Labour on the one side, and the heirs and descendants of Mr Blair on the other. It is much more like a contest between the Daily Mail and the newspapers belonging to Mr Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch is four-square behind the Anglo-American alliance. He is, after all, a US citizen, having renounced his Australian nationality to acquire control of the New York Post; or it may be more complicated than that; it makes no odds.

The Daily Mail, by contrast, has for some years been less than comfortable not only with Mr Blair but also with the whole tone and tenor of the Anglo-American alliance. And though Mr Murdoch yields to no one in his defence of the most stringent personal morality, it is the Mail which expresses most forcefully the judgements and, it may be, the prejudices of its readers up and down the land.

In addition to this, the paper's editor, Mr Paul Dacre, is a warm admirer of Mr Brown. So it is that Mr Brown has scuppered the plans for a supercasino in Manchester; put cannabis into a harsher category, and talked of establishing a border police.

Mr Brown has so far sheltered behind the opinions of his "commanders on the ground" over what should be done in Basra. If he follows his instincts, he should have no difficulty in getting the troops out in time for Christmas.

More from Alan Watkins