Blair, whose days in 10 Downing Street are numbered, can be categorized as one of the most astounding British premiers of recent times, with drastic oscillations in his political career.

All was going well for Tony Blair, who emerged as a hero in 1997 when he guided the Labour Party out of 18 years in the political wilderness, until he started blindly toeing the White House line on foreign policy to the extent of being dubbed "President Bush's aficionado."

He had successfully enabled the Labour Party to have the third consecutive parliamentary majority, and was all set to lead the game until next elections in 2009. But all his dreams of engraving his name in history as the longest serving British premier of the post-World War period have been bitterly shattered.

He has been literally pushed to the wall. Everybody is just waiting for his exit. The reasons leading to his current predicament cannot be explained in simplistic terminology.

There is a consensus in the political circles that Blair has alienated his supporters by sending troops to Iraq, refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire during the war in Lebanon, and failing to persuade the White House to push Israel towards peace with the Palestinians.

But there are some other factors that have further contributed to Blair's ignominy. The refusal of MPs to support him on key reforms, as well as the unavoidable feeling of boredom and disaffection that often envelops any leader who has been omnipresent for around a decade, are perhaps two major factors that are responsible for pushing him to the lowest ebb of popularity.

Nonetheless, his ill-advised and blind support to President Bush's Iraq policy has been the key element in pushing him to this position of complete helplessness. There have been very few instances in British political history when a prime minister is compelled by his erroneous foreign policy to think of a premature exit.

Blair is the most glaring example of this. Since last September, when he promised to step down within one year, everybody is treating him as "gone," and looking over his shoulder to long-time, presumed successor, Gordon Brown.

Not surprisingly, after having a relatively successful ten-year stint that has been marred by his Iraq policy in the last phase, Blair is desperately trying to change this by achieving a semblance of success in Iraq.

His decision to reduce British troops is simply part of this attempt to claim "some" success in Iraq at the twilight of his career. Blair is claiming that he is reducing the British troops stationed there since the situation was normal in southern Iraq.

The plea being projected by Blair is strange, and seriously contradicts President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more US troops to control the insurgency in Baghdad neighbourhoods.

It was Blair who emerged the most vehement supporter of Bush's proposal to send more troops on this pretext. If Blair sincerely believes in Bush's reasoning for a new surge in the US troops in Iraq then, instead of calling them back, he should have diverted these British troops to Baghdad -- from southern Iraq -- to further strengthen the US troops there.

The fact is that Blair has realized his flawed approach of blindly following the White House in the domain of foreign policy, and he wants to make some corrections for saving face.

The reduction in British troops -- and that too from southern Iraq, which was already relatively silent and stable -- is just a symbolic gesture to alleviate the reservations about his ability as a far-sighted statesman.

The fact is that almost all the 22 countries which have sent troops to Iraq to work along with the US troops have no significant impact on the ground operations there. Their individual numerical strength -- which ranges from 15 soldiers to 7,100 troops for different countries -- is so low, compared to 139,000 US troops, that they are more of symbolic value than of any concrete and tangible support to major operations of the US-led coalition.

Ironically, instead of winning him some laurels, his hasty decision to call back a big chunk of the British troops has further portrayed Blair as a directionless leader.

This decision is as bad as his earlier initiative to invade Iraq with President Bush in 2003. Blair fumbles again on Iraq.

Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.